Atheism reduced knowledge to one thing: Atheism

In dealing with the WOT people I put up a statement about Atheist watch and how i have always distinguished between the hate group segment of atheism and the atheist community as a whole, which is diverse. One of them says "fundie, hate filled hate speech." I'm a fundie even though I don't accept inerrancy and have a Moltmannian view of Atonement, becuase they don't know what fundie means. They don't think of fundies as holding to certain aspect of Christian doctrine but they see it as anyone who is not an atheist.

I think atheists have gotten the terms down they have reduced knowledge to one thing: atheism. If you are not an atheist you have no knowledge; even science is worthless unless it's conducted by an atheist ideologue.

Scientific methodology is not improtant. the only way to do scinece is not spout the party line of the atheist movement, being careful not to call it a movement but foment the idea that is' real diverse all the while saying nothing but the approved opinions.

There is one thing and one thing that is knowledge that is atheism's party line. But you are supposed to call it "science."

The one and only alternative to being an atheist is being a fundie.

Atheist have called me fundie. they call atheist watch fundie. they call me a fundie. so they don't know what the word means. it's come to mean something else in their parlance, it means "you are not imitated."


Atheism is a cult int he sociological sense. If you are not initiated into the cult you are an outsider and outsiders are called "fundies."

clearly being a fundie has nothing to do with holding a particular set of Christian doctrines becuase I'm obviously not a funide that my measure. The one thing that would entail is inerreancy and I don't hold to inerrancy. First they began using the term for anyone who takes any aspect of Christianity seriously, no matter how learned or liberal one is. That's enough of a departure form the real meaning of the term. Now they begin to use it it o mean anyone who is not an atheist.

That's pretty much how I define ideology: the only alternative. Not accepting it is not a valid position regardless of the details. That's the way I see them thinking all the time.

this starched because I defended the idea that Luke's geneaology is Mary's rather than Jo's. So they began saying I'm a fundie. regardless of the reasons for saying it. they just say it.

I used Alfred Edershiem as my reason for saying so

Originally Posted by backup

Hey look there was this one guy 100 years ago that I claim agrees with me.

If you have done any sarong on Rabbis or had any dealings whit them (what am i saying?) you would know (something for a change) that they know the Talmudic stuff far better than non Rabbinical readers can. So for a Rabbinical trainee to say that it's far more important than just saying some guy.

Of course you leave out the fact that Edersheim just happens to be one of the greyest schoalrs of the 19th century who was a professor at both Oxford and Cambridge at the the same time! very rare and proves he was the top of the line scholar of the day.


Originally Posted by backup

So what?

Even if you are right about this one guy, nobody buys this idea anymore except fundamentalists.

you just prove I'm right. you don't give a damn abou truth, you admitted you don't. you only care what the cult tells you to say, you just said it.

"everyone says this." one knowledge, one pinon between you never mind the truth rep resat what everyone says.

Great New Site: Atheism Analyzed

It's new to me. It may not be new at all (the first copy I saw was dated December 2010). Atheism Analyzed doesn't tell us who authors the stie, but it does promise on the masthead "A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy."
***
Apparently it's written by an atheist who is tired of the ideology and group think of atheism. He let's it all out too. He's contradicting all the standard bromides and propaganda slgoans from "atheist is not organized" to "atheism has no ideology."

The self-appellated “Skeptics” who cluster into skeptical societies are in no way skeptical of any of the extrapolations of “neuroscience”; these non-skeptical skeptics are all devout believers in the dogma of Atheism / Naturalism / Philosophical Materialism. So, are we non-believers in those dogmas entitled to be skeptical of Neuroscience, as presented under these dogmas?

The first issue I saw was about the atheist propaganda of neuro science: "Neuroscience and dogmatic reductionism." Neuro scinece as use by atheists is not about study of the nervous system but about an ideolgoical use of reductionism to write out of human experience anything that doesn't turn humans into machines. This is not science it's propaganda, but the atheists all assume it religious and refuse to hear a word against it. They believe it is scinece and it masquerades as science becuase it's reductionsitic and they have tome associate reductionism with scinece. He quotes Raymond Tallis [1]:

If you come across a new discipline with the prefix “neuro” and it is not to do with the nervous system itself, switch on your bullshit detector. If it has society in its sights, reach for your gun. Bring on the neurosceptics.

What passes for neuroscience among atheist is tracking bloodflow in the brain. The reason they do this is to accoaiate a part of the Brain with neurological activity. One example is the so called "god part of the brain." Even though he's not an atheist this the assumption Andrew Newberg makes it's the way he works. As the author, the former 40 year atheist puts it:

This practice of tracking blood flow in the brain is used to declare that certain cerebral functions are located in certain areas of the brain. Then other things which are NOT known are inferred and extrapolated, and come be part of a false knowledge base, one that is perpetuated by worldviews that require such. Some of the false knowledge is based on the idea that the blood flow increase is the only activity in the brain that is involved in the processing of that particular input function, and another is that a certain area of the brain does only one function – that which is being investigated. Another is that all brains are materially the same, wired alike and ready for fully caused, predetermined responses based on their history of causation.

None of this is proven or even suggested by the blood flow in the brain under cognitive stimulation. Every stitch of the determinist conclusion is extrapolation beyond existing facts, extending toward dogmatic conclusions.

He quotes Tallis at length:

There is an article in the NewHumanist of the UK site by a neuroscientist, Raymond Tallis [1], who attacks this practice of iconifying neuroscience with false extrapolations into dogmatic philosophy.

”There is a huge gap between the community of minds and animal quasi-societies. The vast landscape that is the human world has been shaped by the activity of explicit individuals who do things deliberately. Uniquely, the denizens of that world entertain theories about their own nature and about the world; systematically inquire into the order of things and the patterns of causation and physical laws that seem to underpin that order; create cities, laws, institutions; frame their individual lives within a shared history that is recorded and debated over; narrate their individual and shared lives; and guide, justify and excuse their behaviour according to general and abstract principles. Neuro-evolutionary theorists try to ignore all this evidence of difference and have even requisitioned the pseudo-scientific notion of the meme, the unit of cultural transmission, analogous to the gene that ensures its own survival by passing from brain to brain, to capture human society for quasi-Darwinian thought. Just how desperate is this endeavour to conceal the Great Ditch separating humans from other animals is evident from the kind of items that are listed as memes: “the SALT agreement”, “styles of cathedral architecture”, “faith”, “tolerance for free speech” and so on.”

If we were not at a great distance from the kind of activity revealed in our brains and, indeed, from the kinds of aggregations seen in the natural world, then the voluntary adoption of social policies, influenced or not by the latest whizz-bang neuroscience, would be impossible; for there would be no outside from which policies could be dreamed up, judged and tested. Indeed, there would be no outside of the organic world. This is illustrated by the pseudo-science of neuro-law. Supposing, for example, we really could assimilate jurisprudence into brain science, on the grounds that it is our brains that make us criminals or law-abiding, then, since our brains are causally wired into the remainder of the material universe, we would have to look beyond the brain for the ultimate source of our actions. They are objects, not subjects. The plea “My brain made me do it” would essentially be that of “the Big Bang made me do it”.

There are attempts by the Atheist/Philosophical Materialist community to present free will as somehow bimodal, that all brain activity is fully caused by our genetics coupled with our environments on the one hand, yet that we still do obviously have the apparent capability of decision making even though it has to be an illusion. (Never mind that the illusion has created complex societies with complex accoutrements which do not seem to be illusions or delusions.)

This degenerates into an arguemnt any kind of free will, since if mind is physical and all phyical phenomena require cause and effect, and if cause and effect is determinism, then all mind is determined. This would mean that computers and all other products of human thought are illusions and human thought is an illusion and humans are automatons.

Atheist seem to be automatons. they passionately believe that God should have made them incapable of sinning. The author of the blog doesn't' go that far into the matter. yet the blog promises to be a vital resource.






[1]Tallis’ research was mainly in the area of geriatric and rehabilitative neurology. He is listed as an author, philosopher, and “polymath”, as well as a retired MD and researcher.

stupid atheist trick of the week

I can't believe anyone would be this dumb. yet here it is. In a discussion on carm where an atheist is drawing an analogy between spreading the gospel and passing a chain letter (I figured "they must be hard up for hate speech if they have to use this--but the fact that it was an analogy is important) another atheist chimes in:

Not just fundies engage in chain letters. Regular ole people do. They get an email saying something like "If you believe, pass this on and you will be rewarded witernal life and ice cream every day while you count your billion dollars, or if you don't pass this on, you get dirt to eat and suffering for all eternity."

Lots of people pass it on. This has to be how Christianity started. The original chain letter. Good example, troxel.

He actually takes it literally and claims that people are really willing to pass on letter believing they get eternal life. These guys must be really hard up to find things to criticize Christianity about if they have to resort to such balderdash. This was by "Diest" who has graces these pages with similar brilliance in the past.

StOoPiD MoNkEy Displays Typical Atheist Ignorance.

On the post the circular nature of atheist ideology this character calling himself "StOoPiD MoNkEy chimes in to show us that he doesn't know what circular reasoning is.

his comment:

This example of circular reasoning that your attribute to atheist does not work. What exactly was the evidence that the theist presented. Personal experience perhaps? If that is the case, well then yes...that is not evidence. Please remember, the burden of proof is on those making a positive claim. As far as CARM goes. It has been shown already that Matt Slick is full of it and most of, if not all, his arguments have big issues with them.

Here we see the problem immediately. He's reciting slogans form the atheist propaganda wagon without thinking about how they apply or what they mean. For example who has the burden of proof has nothing to do with weather or not the argument they make is circular. The only issue in relation to circular reasoning is "does the premise rest upon the conclusion." I'll show momentarily that in the case I discussed it does. That's a totally separate issue form who has the burden of proof. He says the example of circular reasoning doesn't work but then he doesn't bother to say why. He goes off reciting propaganda slogans and doesn't deal with the issue.

Of course he recites the ignorance programed into him by his atheist brain washers, that personal experience can't prove anything. That has nothing to do with the circular nature of their argument, which is what my blog spot was about.

here is the post in question.

The Circular nature of atheist ideology

Atheism wants to pass itself off as "scientific." So they cling to the scienistic idea that science is the only form of knowledge. They truncate the nature of truth to that which can be produced by their own methods. Anything else they reduce until they lose the phenomena. So at that point atheism can't have truth all it can have is circular reasoning.


atheist: "there is nothing beyond the materiel realm. There are no proof of the SN, No evidence for God, no nothing.

Believer--Here's some, here's a whole pile facts from which one might deduce the existence of God.

Atheist: "those can't be evidence for SN or for God."

Believer--why not?

Atheist: Because there can't be any such evidence.

Believer--how do you know that?

Atheist: because there aren't any


Beleiver--what about the stuff I just presented.

Atheist: I disproved that, it can't be evidence because there isn't any.

that little hypothetical exchange Demosthenes the circle in the reasoning, the premise rests on the conclusion because he starts form the premise that there can't be any proof for SN because it's SN and that doesn't issue in proof. The proof of that statement is that based upon excluded all examples, there are no examples. That's obviously circular reasoning; the conclusion is the same as the premise.

it doesn't make any difference if other aspects of theistic argument are wrong or badly done that who has the burden of proof is irrelevant to circular reasoning. he's not even thinking about logic as a subject of it's own, but just as an aid to further propaganda..

(1) Atheists selective rule out as 'fact' anything that doesn't match the ideology.

(2) Atheists reduce to a point of losing the phenomena any phenomena that stands against the ideology.

(3) Atheists use mockery and ridicule to shut down any discussion that is not in line with the ideology.

(4) Atheists exclude from reality any form of knowledge would give results contrary to the ideology.

(5) Atheists construct a false paradigm of knowledge based upon scientistic (not scientific but scientistic) assumptions.

(6) All thinking must be filtered through the ideology of atheistic sceintism.
__________________


Here's the rational, logical, factually oriented rebuttal of an atheist on CARM

NWRT- not worth responding to. And nothing you've written here changes that. I'll start taking you more seriously as an intellectual once you start addressing our actual arguments.

Go back and look over what you just wrote- now apply it to yourself. You do nothing but post ridiculous arguments (like your little "co-determinate" joke), insult people when they present legitimate disagreement, and present strawman versions of atheist's positions. Why on earth would anyone be interested in trying to have a genuine, serious discussion with you?

I asked him what's ridiculous about it:

I've explained it to you a million times- strong belief is not controlled for. And, true to form, you've only answered your strawman version of my argument.

Holy Irony Batman, doesn't this actually prove what I was saying? I have 300 studies he has 0. He decides this 'strong belief' which he can't define without a single study to back it up. Isn't this really a case of declaring my fact to be "no facts" because they differ form the ideology?