Don't Confuse Me With the Facts: Atheist Reaction to my 200 Studies on Religoius Experince

Originally Posted by Deist

I looked at your site. All I saw was a bunch of names. Are we supposed to check out each name and see what that dolt said? You, as a scholar, can't compile the 200 alleged "proofs" and put them on your blog??? Are you kidding me??

What he's calling a list of names is bibliography listing the studies for the arguments I make on religious experience. These are the 200 studies I always talk about that show experiencing God's presence changes our life dramatically in long term positive way. These studies over a 50 year period all show that religious experience is good for you. What he's calling "a bunch of names" also include publication data so the reader can look them up. Of course in five years of talking about them they never have. I can't link to the studies (I've tired) most of them are either not on the net or they are JOSTOR or Pub med you have to pay to see them. The next best thing and all that is required in debate is to provide the citation so they can be looked up.

Here's an example, the first few cites:

Adams, N. (1995). Spirituality, science and therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 16 (4), 201-208.

Alexander, C. (1978). A literature review of the individual differences approach to mystical states of consciousness and a proposed alternative perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Cambridge, MA.

Alexander, C. (1982). Ego development, personality and behavioral change in inmates practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique or participating in other programs: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Alexander, C., Boyer, R. & Orme-Johnson, D. (1985). Distinguishing between transcendental consciousness and lucidity. Lucidity Letter, 4(2), 68-85.

Alexander, C.N., Chandler, K. & Boyer, R.W. (in press). Experience and understanding of pure consciousness in the Vedic Science of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In Gackenbach, J.I. & Hunt, H. (Eds.). Higher states of consciousness: Theoretical and experimental perspectives, N.Y.: Plenum. 1990

Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dixon, C.A., Dillbeck, M.C., Oetzel, R.M., Muehlman, J.M. & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (in press). Higher stages of consciousness beyond formal operations: The Vedic psychology of human development. In C.N. Alexander and E.J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Adult growth beyond formal operations, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

That's the "bunch of names." ALL I saw was a "bunch of names." of course he just didn't notice it's also publisher, name of publication, date of publication and so on. He's never a bibliography before. this illiterate who has never done a bibliography actually said my scholarship is lacking!

My God you guys are so lazy. how do you think I know this stuff? because I did check it out. yes in fact you are expected to check out every name! btw do you not understand the concept of Bibliography? were excuse form all English classes?

If there was a site were all these studies on the net and could be linked to I would be linked to. Most of them are on Pub med and Jostar and other academic sties that require money to see. I had to get them in hard copy one by one. I did. so I'm not concerned that you have to go to some effort. did I say you have to see every one? why can't you just get one?

in five years not one of you has done that.

before you start ragging on my scholarship be sure you know what that word means. one of the major things it meas is a knowledge of how to look stuff up.

You write volumes on your blog, and yet the link just goes to names of people? You think we're stupid? We're supposed to spend hours and days looking up what each of these people said? YOU are the one making the claims. Put the studies, surveys, questionnaires, etc. on your blog, so we can examine them for ourself. What are you afraid of?

Gee why didn't I think of that? You mean like there:

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/08/defense-of-m-scale.html

Here:
http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html

here:

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/Mystical3.html

here:

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/Supernature4.html

it's all over my old site and on my new one.

do I think you are stupid? Let's see, you don't know what documentation is. you don't know what bibliographies are. you don't understand that the word "scholar" means. you don't know ow work a library you can't figure out that you don't need to look at every one bu a random sample would tell what you want to know.

I'll hold off judgement on if I think you are stupid I'll let the reader decide.

the things I"m saying may seem absurd to your generation but it's the way I grew up dong it. No debate team in America would go into a debate round in high school or college debate on the assumption that they have to have all he material with them in entirety. It's perfectly acceptable to offer just the source so an enterprising debater can look it up.

If I had to spend five years researching these studies and into this body of knowledge, why can't you be bothered to look one up?

atheist said:

You won't, cause you know darn well that these studies stink, and don't show what you claim.

That is BS. I know damn well the opposite is true. I've talked to many of the researchers. I have gotten to know the major researcher of most of them, the inverter of the M scale personally. I was a sociology major I studied how to do social science research in college both graduate and undergraduate and I know these are find studies. they are varying in quality but some are very very good.

this says a lot more about the critic's laziness and ideological bias and lack of expertise in social scinece research.

Meta, you should be ashamed of your obfuscation and diversion.

you should be ashamed of your refusal to undersatnd the truth. you do not know what research is about.

stop your little pretensions lecture you do not have the erudition to which you pretend.



he goes on

You know better. the people here are too smart for this. This isn't catechism class. The people here regularly run circles around these Christians. You need better stuff than a blog with names of people who have done class papers, or written in some obscure college journal or a religious mag about sending out questionnaires. I'm not even sure if that's what those people did.

That's a list of names it's the citations for the studies. Where you look them up.
Some appear to study the occult, lucid dreaming, childhood memories, and who knows what all. Maybe alien abductions. And this is to be taken seriously??? Seriously, Meta...come onnnnn!!!!

(hey reader: do you see this actually proves he didn't read the stuff. He took the other guy's word for it that it was just a bunch of names, either that or he doesn't know what bibliography is either.

Atheist Says:

Is your point that people who claim a god belief do better in test questions on happiness than non believers? That's a no brainer because they believe they will be happier, and therefore, they are.

This is rich. The studies are mostly questionnaires because more social science studies are. Most of these were done psychologists. Its' a complex matter of constructing a good scientific questionarie (yes they can be) then making a good study design in terms of random and representative study, double and all of that. This guy assumes that because they asking them question they don't know if they had an experience or if their lives are better. They are so stupid because they had experiences they can't be trusted to say dah I'm happier now." They can't be trusted to say if their lives, they couldn't know. If they made a black box and imposed the will of a scientist on them and said "we find that be electrical impulses given off form this person are indicative of the impulses given off by happy people" perhaps they would except that, that would be objective and scientific! It would also be BS and scinece fiction. They have been brain washed as atheist to deny personal experience to think of perception as always flawed and never trust worthy.

They can't undersatnd how surveys and questionnaires are scientific and how they can be designed into a good scientific study because they don't know scinece. All they know is the mystique of "objective." Black boxes and flashing lights and mathematics that's science. We can't trust anything anyone says. so if someone says they had an experience and it made their lives better hat's a lie. It never occurs to them to wonder, gee how is it all the people who make up these certain kinds of experiences just happen to make up the same kind of betterment that it brings them? O it's just a coincidense don't even think about it.

Your studies, surveys, whatever you call them prove only that the law of cause and effect, and that you are what you believe you are. Tony Robbins could impart the same message, with the same, or better, results.

Whatever you call them (don't confuse me with the facts, they are not even worth bothering to learn the names). He assumes some kind of placebo but no athist has ever answered my answer to that: most of these experiences are first time conversion experiences by people who didn't know about them and weren't looking to have them. 45% are in children the first time they have them.. He doesn't even bother to learn the facts. If he did he would realize his argument isn't worth making. How can it be expectations when they don't expect it? Moreover if it's just "confirmation bias" how is it that experiences that contradict doctrine are common place? That shouldn't be if this is just fulfillment of expectoration they should all agree with pet doctrines.

Atheism is a cult it's a brain washing these people are prevented from thinking objectively and reasonably about scientific facts and data that disprove their cherished ideology.

btw this has been going on for five years on CARM. In that time none of them have bothered to look up a single study. Here's a dialogue I did with an atheist on CARM explaining all about the 200 studies.

atheist have no honor and no morlaity: Mat Hunt attacks me when I banned so I can't defend myself.

While I'm banned from CARM that's the time to say a bunch of stuff about me so I can't fight back. That's exactly what the little cowards have done.

Mat Hunt says:

As you may be aware, metacrock and I have been to-ing and fro-ing about his argument about fire in the equations, which essentially states: The laws of physics remain constant and don't change therefore god basically. I answered all his objections despite his bogus claims that I didn't answer any of them, he changed his argument and I answered that one as well and I think that the people on this board understood what was going on and agreed that Meta had indeed lost the challenge to show that his fire in the equations argument works. I still have unreplied to posts explaining why the laws of physics don't change.

However Meta will still crow that although he is a theologian, his knowledge of science is superior to mine, a working scientist. So I don't think much of his argument and I personally don't think he's honest at all in his arguments.

This statement is so full of lies.I can't understand how it is that a Ph.D. candidate and grown man can't read what people say and reflect it accurately or honestly. The things he's claiming I have said I have denied saying many time. He's dogmatically pretending like he got it right and he's full lying. I've always observed that have very reading compression, this is really basically lying.

(1) My argument has never been "the laws of phsyics remain stable therefore God" that is a totally dishonest and stupid lie. the reason he says that is because he's basically not capable intellectually of understanding the real argument. It's totally different.

nowhere have I never stupid enough to say "laws of phsyics therefore God." I also have backed off the original position stating that perhaps Mat does know more about it than I do. that's not good enough for him or maybe he just doesn't get what it means. The original position was that laws of phsyics determine what happens, not that they change. Assuming that laws of physics are necessary to make things happen, then I ask where are the laws of phsyics? What makes them work, where are they kept. they can't be laws floating about apart form any structure and theorized that's a good reason (I didn't claim it as a proof) to think that a mind houses the laws as ideas in a mind.

Hunt is such a poor thinker that the transmutes that into "physical laws therefore God." I also admitted that my understanding of the laws of phsyics was not as good as his since he studies in Graduate and perhaps I overstated the extent to which they are laws. I reformulated the argument with a totally different focus, which something else he conveniently leaves out.

(2) "I answered that one as well and I think that the people on this board understood what was going on and agreed that Meta had indeed lost the challenge to show that his fire in the equations argument works."

O yea I lost that so bad. here's what really happened:

..........(a) he never listed to my arugment, he couldn't understand what it was about. he said a bunc h of things that didn't apply. He got everyone on his side (the majority of hte board) to back him up and say "O he's winning' He kicking Meta's ass" even though hone of them could say what the major issues were. When asked to recite what issues beat my argument none of hem had any answer! Like hte typical little liars they are they can't face truth.

mmm(b) I quoted several physicist who backed up exact what I was saying. Mat never quoted any authority or source. all he said was things like "I'm a scientist you must believe me" that constituted about 90% of the arguments he made.

..........(c) the rest of the argument he made said things like "the laws are in the sub atomic particles that's why they act like they do." which is not an answer of any kind becuase it just asserts a meaningless statement, what do you mean to "the laws are in the particles?" again what's makes them laws, how did they get into the particles? he could never say.

...........(d) I quote Martian Rees who he admitted he admires, and I quoted him saying exactly hwat I was saying. I quoted it about five times. every time mat refused to admit that I quoted it and he never answered. O yea they beat it so soundly!

,,,,,,,,,,,,,(e) he never mentions the fact hat I re-wrote the argument. What did he say to the re-write? he said "I'm a scientist you must believe me."

(3) "However Meta will still crow that although he is a theologian, his knowledge of science is superior to mine, a working scientist."

This is another distortion, I think probably becuase he doesn't understand my response. I never said my knowledge of science is supirior to his. This is after many times that he kept saying "I know more about science than you do so you must believe me" and that as substitute for real argument. I said I understand the history and philsophy of science better than he does. and I do. I will stick by it and prove it.


here's where one can find my re-booted argument "fire in the equations."

here's the new abstract to the re-boot version:

There's a contradiction in the framework scinece takes to physical law as purely descriptive, the fact that the description is our perceptions, and the order and regularity we see in nature. Obviously the description is that of something ordered and organized at a certain level, but also something that contains elements of random event and uncertainty. That suggests an ordering principle but one that is of a mind.

That's ok, I still stand behind every statement. The problem is it's always met by atheist claims that laws of physics are no longer seen as perspective, they don't 'make thing happen. They are just descriptive so they are not even laws at all in any way they are just descriptions.

That's really the reason I said "organizing principle" instead "laws f phsyics." I knew that but I didn't realize how fastidious they would be in insisting on their terminology and their way of framing things. you can't say organizing principle beuase it's not scientific. We don't dare use our minds if scinece doesn't tell us we can then only in exactly the way it says to.

I have been arguing that there had to be some kind of structure or soemthing to make the regularity that brought the universe into being. But no it's just popped up for no reason, its' all just pure description and anything can happen,. there's no regularity, no reason for it. It's just what we observe. So I then I would go the other way. If it's just observation then your observation can be incomplete, there could be miracles, nothing to stop them. O no they never happen because "we" don't see it. I say "I do." they say "no I don't' so that means 'we ' don't."

In the final analysis they are just arguing form authority. Science says "you didn't say 'science may I' so you can't believe this." This is why I feel the need present the argument in a new way.

Atheist is in a dilemma.

Either:

I. The has to be a principle of ordering or organizing to account for the regularity we observe in the universe.

A. Can't exist apart from universe it describes

B. where is it located? Mind is the best candidate

or, if we accept that laws are only descriptive

II. The field is wide open, anything can happen, they open the door to God in scinece:

A. Change naturalistic paradigm

The paradigm of natural was based upon the idea of perspective laws of phsyics that told everything in the universe how to behave, and thus replaced God as the major explanations for the way things are.

(1). Materialism based upon cause and effect

Dictionary of Philosophy Anthony Flew, article on "Materialism"

"...the belief that everything that exists is either matter or entirely dependent upon matter for its existence." Center For Theology and the Natural Sciences Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark, 1999) http://www.ctns.org/Information/information.html Is the Big Bang a Moment of Creation?(this source is already linked above)

"...Beyond the Christian community there was even greater unease. One of the fundamental assumptions of modern science is that every physical event can be sufficiently explained solely in terms of preceding physical causes. Quite apart from its possible status as the moment of creation, the Big Bang singularity is an offense to this basic assumption. Thus some philosophers of science have opposed the very idea of the Big Bang as irrational and untestable."

Atheist vengence: once you expose their treachery look out!

The emotionally backward individual who sent the hate mail last time has put up a thing of lies about me on his blog. he sent me hate mail, make absurd ridiculous statements calculated to do nothing more than hurt my feelings (as though i give a damn what this moron thinks). I exposed it showing everyone so the readership can draw conclusions themselves by seeing that can't take the responsibility for his own action,.

This is has so angered him that he put up this long insult thing. This is really stupid. the mina thing is dumb ass hate mail accomplished was to give me some material for the hate group theme on atheism. Now him is so angry like a good little emotionally stunted person that he does it some more only in a more grandiose way, thus demonstrating that he can't tell the difference in calling him on his actions and actually picking a fight with him.

here is a guy who obviously can't reason very well and doesn't understand personal responsibility.

He makes some comments about carm. Here's where he starts talking about me:

One of the most active of these trolls goes by the name of Metacrock. Metacrock is a morbidly obese man-boy who was banned from DebatingChristianity.com years ago for his bad behavior. He has found a home at CARM where name-calling and belittling non-believers is encouraged.

He's assuming I look the way I did in the photo which was taken in 1999. I had also lost 50 lbs when it was taken and others have said you can't tell form the photo how fat I look. He's just assuming. He's been reading about me on the net and is using a lot of old bagged to find ways to hurt me. why? because I made evil horrible mistake of getting him banned. that's right I made him get banned by reporting his slandering me.He's the big big man he don't let no body push him around and little things like being wrong aren't gonna stop him.

Debating Christianity was an atheist site, therefore specified in mocking and ridicule. So I was banned for fighting back and defending myself, of course. I have shown that atheist use mockery to force weak young people who are not committed but on the fence to give up their faith in order rto prevent begin bulled. This guy is one of the harassers. In just society he would be in jail for what he's doing. In a premisive society he's allowed to hurt people all the time and I sure does all the time.

Metacrock spends most of his time bragging about his fake education from a Christian school and insisting no one but him has ever been to college. His arguments are nothing more than, “you are stupid, I went to seminary.”

Fake education notice that the jackass links Loftus sight. He hasn't had the courage to actually ask John about me. John knows my education is real. he will tell the little misfit if head the guts to ask, he doesn't have the guts does he? If he did he would know. He still refers to it as fake even though I told him to check with Loftus and he's too cowardly to do it. The very quotation he links demonstrates not only friendship bewteen Loftus and I but also that Loftus doesn't regard my education as false. This idiot actually links to that to supposedly prove my education is fake.

Of cousre the lying emotional retard-ate says that I claim only I have been to college. that's obviously not the case.

Beyond this, Metacrock is either horribly dyslexic and/or a terrible speller.

ahahaha what a moron! can anyone really be that stupid? First of all, he's totally obvious to the fact that those are the same thing. If you are a bad spelling the odds are extremely high that you are dyslexic, which of cousre he doesn't know dyslexia form a hole in the ground. Not only is that tautology but can't he tell that I'm a bad speller just by looking? I'm sure the little miscreant regards dyslexia as something like retardation. He probalby thinks spelling is a sign of intelligent. most really stupid people do think that. As a matter of fact dyslexics do tend to have IQ's well above average. I was diagnosed as dyslexic and given treatment for it as a child back in the 1960s by Luke Weights the guy who discovered it and devolved the therapy at Scottish Rite Children Hospital.

It doesn't surprise me that this little lame brain is such a bigot he mocks and ridicules people with challenges. He did it on carm to in his other guise, not the grand wizard, the one on CARM

Half his statements are illegible and ramble on for paragraphs without ever coming to a clear point. The more upset he gets the worse his grammar. Because of his insecurity, based on his looks and troubled childhood, he starts overheating when anyone dares question anything he says, no matter how stupid or unsupported. His poor research is typical within Christian apologetics.

such a telling defect to get upset and become more dyslexia. I really gotta watch that. Of cousre he doesn't' bother to mention the reason I'm up set is because I usually 30 little misfit know nothing talking about evil and stupid I am and saying really stupid things, like you know, case in point here.

Here are typical examples of his posts:

"O sy professor, religious people are afraid to admit they aer agonized. religious peopel don't though hissy fits when one suggests they are organized."

"you are really ignorant and not very bright."

"Knock it off junior. it's gone on way too long to try that little ploy! hundreds of post since 2007.
don't you dare question that coward. can't stand up and face your opponent like a man. you play little girlie games."

Kind of makes a difference not knowing the context does it? Leave to lame brain not to think about that. Are these things 30 years apart? are they in the last five minutes? Where they in response to 30 knowing nothing mocking and ridiculing calling me names? He doesn't know he doesn't care. How can the context matter, I'm a Christian I have to be stupid. Do you really believe for a minute that if I was an atheist he would going to all this trouble?

"you know that's not true. you know what they are calling insults are things like "you don't have any studies." that's a big insult even though it 's true and not a real insult.
you are insulting, most atheist are. the majority of them are. You use that as a tool for character assassination. claiming that I'm always insulting is just part destroying the reputation. you could just as easily understanding it as defending myself if you wanted to.
Always talking about how bad I am is ad hom. you keep that going becasue that's your true purpose. Not reason, not ideas, not discussion, but emotionally huring Christians to feel like a big shot.t hat's your real game"

You get the idea.

I sure do. atheists really suck. T hey are such bastard they drive you to anger.

He seems to be mental disturbed.

ahahahahahah "he seems to be mental distured." O the expert on writing has a misatke. Maybe he's dyslexic?s Or just a bad grammar maker.

His constant bragging about his unimpressive education is a sad attempt to convince himself that he is worth the love that was refused to him by his mother.

Of course since he hasn't provided a context there's no establishment of the idea that I barg. H says I am but he doesn't document that. Then the Grand Wizard says my mother didn't love me. Like he really has some idea about it. this guy know 0 about my mother or me. He has 0 change of getting me to doubt my mother's love.

don't' you think it kind of says something about this guy as a person? If anyone out there can quote to me anything I've said (other than a remark I made to Hermit years ago and have apologized for several times) that's even close to being an a par with that kind of evil sick stupidity I will apologize profusely to all atheist.

this little retardant guy is putting my reporting his slandering me that got him banned,(his actions) on a par with him slandering my mother who died of Alzheimer as I took care of her and gave up my carer and basically ended my chance of any kind of life forever just to give me a few good years at the end. He thinks that's fair. What kind of seriousness self conceited little pig bigot pace of shit would think that way?

Is he really so far below the mark of rational healthy minded humanity that he can't see the distinction? I criticize people for not knowing what they criticize. I say things like You have not read that you don't have a right to critixize it. he says stuff like "your mother didn't love you" even though he has no idea who she was or what she was like.

O ye's a made a powerful statement for atheism here. I really want to consider the truth claims of group that has him for a member.

Atheits lying slander: How they Just Refuse to accept truth

the atheist pretender* who claims to have a degree in science.

Originally Posted by Mat Hunt

Oh this is rich coming from you I must say!! Here is the man who invents concepts and then crowbars the notion of a deity into his arguments. Not just ANY deity though, the god of the bible.

I see you have learned to parrot back what you near these no knowing saying. Because they don't read theology and none of you has ever been to a seminary just by the general hatred you feel for Christians you assume you know more about it than someone who received Masters at a major seminary?

that's really brilliant. I know more than you do about scinece.

get it through your head little pretender. You don't know anything about ethology. you haven't read a single page. you can't name a theologian. you wouldn't have the sliest idea what you are talking about. I am spitting back the things I was tough in seminary by major theolgoians in the Methodist curacy how dare you try to tell me that you know more than I do? You don't know ****!

You would not know a single thing about theological concepts if one git you where you sit and gave you a head ache. you don't know **** from shinola about theology. have a Masters in it.

how dare you try to pass judgment on my views when you know nothing about the subject.


just more atheist gimmicky to dingoes ideas you can't understand or out argue. you can't deal with it becasue you don't know anything about so you just do a bunch of heckling like a kid on the play ground that's supposed to pass for "disproving it."

then you go "you are so insult." why the **** do think I am insulting! you are being grossly insluting. how dare you try to tell me I don't know my own field when you don't know it???

that's dishonest it's a con job it's a crime against reason its' slander I'm raise the bloody roof until they force you to stop slandering me.


*I did not call him a pretender to say question is degree. That is beside the point. In spite of his degree he is pretending to the commitment to scholarship and learning because he does not respect knowledge of any other aspect of he academy but his own.

Atheist LIes About Christians and Prison: Made up Pew Study

In an article entitled "Some Hard Truths about Prayer and Crime a blog called Ploiticus USA asserts that a Pew Study finds that Christians are more likely to go to Prison.This artilce contians some of the most haius lies I've ever seen. The author, Hrafnkell Haraldsson,  self described: "social liberal with leanings toward centrist politics has degrees in history and philosophy." 

I recently wrote about the Republican school prayer myth. I thought we’d revisit the question of prayer and violence  given the Republican mania over the question. They’re pushing a narrative of prayer = nonviolence. They want us to believe that the absence of prayer in our public schools is breeding criminals. They want us to believe barring religion from politics at the government level is corrupting America. Religion, they say (as do many Muslims) is the maker and enforcer of morality. Without God, morality, so the narrative goes, is impossible.

If the morality police are right, most of our criminals are nasty old atheists and secularists and Pagans.

But they’re not! Atheists and agnostics commit fewer crimes than Christians.  A Pew Research Values Study shows that “crime correlates inversely with levels of religious conviction.”

The problem is he never sites the source and the Pew Research Center has never heard of it. They could not find me a researcher who could point me to the study. Pew is an Evangelical organization funded by private money from a family. It's not very likely they would produce such a study.

He doesn't stop there he has a whole article of lies:

We already noted that secularism is on the rise, from 8% of Americans in 1990 to 15% in 2008. If this is the case, and if the morality police are right, then crime should be on the increase as well, because these are the immoral slobs committing all the crimes.

He doesn't say 8% of what. He doesn't define what he means by "secular" there are secular priests, I'm a secular person. Does he think he means atheists? There sure are not 8% atheists in Ameica. Maybe he means 8% who don't like organized religion, does that make them "secular?" maybe, maybe not. what's he talking about? We know can't trust atheists to honestly represent their figures because they love to inflate them. There are not more than 6% atheists nd probalby 3%, and no more than 9% who overall dislike organized religion but do believe in some sort of God or higher power.

Instead, violent crime remained at a steady level from 1990 to 1993 and since 1993 it has declined. As America has become more secular, it has become less violent.

He doesn't give us any idea as to what he means by "become more secular." America has not become more atheist. If anything it's less atheists. Some have shifted from Christian belief to Neo-pagn or general sort of theist/deist kind of haze. No laws of have peen passed making the country more secular he doesn't really give us an idea of what he means. As for less violent a variety of measures were enacted under Clinton such as putting a hundred thousand more cops on the street and having more lights are locks. These measures known to reduce crime.

The core argument he's working against in the first place is  kind of lunck headed to begin with. Anyone who makes an uncritical association between religious belief and lower crime rates is sociologically naive. Haraldsson moves to the opposite extreme that is not helping either. Now he demonstrates his true sociological ignorance by drawing upon well worn and disproved atheist mistakes in bogus social analysis:

Who fills up our prisons? Why, secularists of course! Atheists! Pagans!
Wrong again. The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that nonbelievers are only two-tenths of 1% of inmates. Since Christians are approximately 80% of the population and 75% of it’s prisoners, we should be drawing some vastly different conclusions, shouldn’t we?
While I’m sure the apologists will explain the 91% of executed murderers on persecution of the faithful, the numbers suggest that Christians are simply more likely to murder somebody. How many atheists were executed for murder in the same ten-year period? Less than a third of 1%.

I have already discussed other atheist claims and alled "studies" where I cught atheists open fabricating statistics.
 
I reproduce that article below

One attempt at this bogus atheist social sciences is a site by Boyd Swift. Swift, thought he would be a wrote the bureaus of prisons for stats, but unfortunately he doesn't know how to read a table.

I can't reproduce the table here without screwing up the side bar, but I will link to the tables, please read them. I will reproduce some of the stats.

One attempt at this bogus atheist social sciences is a site by Boyd Swift. Swift, thought he would be a wrote the bureaus of prisons for stats, but unfortunately he doesn't know how to read a table.

Response	Number	%
Catholic	29267	39.164%
Protestant	26162	35.008%
Muslim	5435	7.273%
American Indian	2408	3.222%
Nation	1734	2.320%
Rasta	1485	1.987%
Jewish	1325	1.773%
Church of Christ	1303	1.744%
Pentecostal	1093	1.463%
Moorish	1066	1.426%
Buddhist	882	1.180%
Jehovah Witness	665	0.890%
Adventist	621	0.831%
Orthodox	375	0.502%
Mormon	298	0.399%
Scientology	190	0.254%
Atheist	156	0.209%
Hindu	119	0.159%
Santeria	117	0.157%
Sikh	14	0.019%
Bahai	9	0.012%
Krishna	7	0.009%

---------------------------- -------- Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this) Unknown/No Answer 18381 What's really intereting is what Adherents.com has to say about these stats and Swifts website. Here is a letter by researcher on Adherents.com who checked out Swift's data: Adherents.com

David Rice has written to us (23 October 2002) concerning the origin of the data in the table below: The data came from Denise Golumbaski, who was a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The data was compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997. (Note that as of the year 1999, Analyst Golumbaski is no longer working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons; I had telephoned Analyst Golumbaski to request the latest figures, and was told by another analyst that Golumbaski was no longer employed there.) The data was requested by Mr. Rod Swift, who passed it on to me for my web site. I later called the Federal Bureau of Prisons and confirmed that the data did in fact come from their database.

This is the actual data Swift had to work wtih and Rice documents that fact, here it is:

19.908%

Response	Number	%
Catholic	29267	39.164%
Protestant	26162	35.008%
None/Atheist/Unknown	18,537
Muslim	5435	7.273%
American Indian	2408	3.222%
Nation	1734	2.320%
Rasta	1485	1.987%
Jewish	1325	1.773%
Church of Christ	1303	1.744%
Pentecostal	1093	1.463%
Moorish	1066	1.426%
Buddhist	882	1.180%
Jehovah Witness	665	0.890%
Adventist	621	0.831%
Orthodox	375	0.502%
Mormon	298	0.399%
Scientology	190	0.254%
Atheist	156	0.209%
Hindu	119	0.159%
Santeria	117	0.157%
Sikh	14	0.019%
Bahai	9	0.012%
Krishna	7	0.009%

I have represented both talbes exactly as they appear on the adherents.com website.

Several interesting points. The original says "National of Islam," Swift's Version says "Nation" only. The Original puts Muslims at 5.837% While Swift's version puts them at 7.273%. Swift's has Mormons as seventh from bottom. The original doesn't have Mormons on it.

What's really interesting is what Adherents.com has to say about these stats and Swifts website. Here is a letter by researcher on Adherents.com who checked out Swift's data: Adherents.com

David Rice has written to us (23 October 2002) concerning the origin of the data in the table below: The data came from Denise Golumbaski, who was a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The data was compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997. (Note that as of the year 1999, Analyst Golumbaski is no longer working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons; I had telephoned Analyst Golumbaski to request the latest figures, and was told by another analyst that Golumbaski was no longer employed there.) The data was requested by Mr. Rod Swift, who passed it on to me for my web site. I later called the Federal Bureau of Prisons and confirmed that the data did in fact come from their database.

I have represented both talbes exactly as they appear on the adherents.com website.

Several interesting points. The original says "National of Islam," Swift's Version says "Nation" only. The Original puts Muslims at 5.837% While Swift's version puts them at 7.273%. Swift's has Mormons as seventh from bottom. The original doesn't have Mormons on it.

What's really interesting is the major difference for our purposes, the original includes "none/atheist/unknown as third from the top. Swift puts them much further down. The Originals give the atheist category almost 20% while Swift gives it 0.2% or less.

Examine this table with the one above.


Swift's Table


On Swift's table there is no mention of atheist in the first five and atheist is listed fifth from the bottom. In that table atheist is 0.209%. Now here is the table sent by the Bureau of prisons to Rice, first five:,br>

In this table Atheist/unknown/none is third form top and has 19%! Fifth from the bottom on this version is not atheist but "Hindu." So the version sent by the Bureau of Prisons is significantly different than the version put up by Swift.

It seems Swift misrepresented the data.

So in other words, the actual number of atheists is about a quarter as high as the Christians. It's not this tiny 0.something percent, it's actually pretty high.
It's pretty clear he fabricated the data. These mistakes are too far off to be merely mistakes in recording.

Swift goes on to explain how the disproportionate number of atheists in prison from the general population means they are so far better behaved than Christians.

Now, let's just deal with the nasty Christian types, no? "Judeo-Christian Total 62594 83.761% (of the 74731 total responses) Total Known Responses 74731 Not unexpected as a result. Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)."

Of course he's distorting these figures too because it's not 8% certainly not 16%. He's including people who believe in God but don't like organized religion as well as agnostics as atheists. He's also dealing with his false figures. The actual figure is 20% atheists in prison and 3% in society. So what does this tell us? Atheist are a lot less well behaved.

adherents.com
answers Swift's page directly:

One atheist web page (http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm) presented statistics stating that 0.209% of federal prisoners (in 1997) stated "atheist" as their religious preference. This site said that this is far less than the 8 to 16% of the American population that are atheists.

The atheist site, however, provided no source for the notion that "8 to 16%" of Americans are atheists. This statistic is completely without support from the available data. Gallup polls which include questions about religion have consistently shown that between 93 and 96% of Americans say that they believe in God. Presumably atheist writers would not suggest that up to half of their claimed "atheists" believe in God. The actual proportion of atheists in the United States is about 0.5% (half of one percent). This is the figure obtained from the largest survey of religious preference ever conducted: the National Survey of Religious Identification (Kosmin, 1990), which polled 113,000 people. The religious preference questions were part of questioning completely unrelated to religious preference (consumer preferences, entertainment, etc.), so the frequent retort of atheists that their numbers don't like to admit to atheism, and hence are under counted, is unlikely.

Atheists play a little game where they refuse to accept the fact that there are distinctions between really have a devotion to a faith and merely having a passing identification. They play this game so they can say that all the bad things of history are done by Christians and Christians can't say "O but they weren't real Christians." Yet real sociologists (which is more than just a matter of dedication but of real credentials) say that there is a valid distinction and not all people who say "I am a Christian" are really examples of dedication to that faith. The refusal to account for depth of commitment is a real flaw in Swift's thinking and this is exactly what adherents.com points out:

Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of. (One of the best discussions of this phenomenon can be found in The Churching of America, 1776-1990, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992.)

On that same page adherents.com quotes Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95):

72% affirm Christianity

54% actually declare themselves religious

Only 33% actually pracitce their faith (by attending chruch).


Sociologists would laugh themselves silly over the simplistic nature of Swift's thinking. It's just not enough to assume from raw data on the afflictions of prison population that some belief system leads to crime. From that same adherents.com page:

Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of. (One of the best discussions of this phenomenon can be found in The Churching of America, 1776-1990, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992.)

As that same article points out someone on a survey answering "Im a Methodist" is virtually meaningless, not sociologically it is meaningless, becuase that person may be just remembering the affliction of the family or the grandparents or parents, not his own actual feelings. A more reliable indication is enrollment on chruch rolls. Even more reliable than that is chruch attendance.

Swift does not even take into account depth of belief, he doesn't bother to determine when the inmates started their beliefs. If I went to prison I would join a chruch and say I was a Christian, even if I wasn't. You are more likely to get parole, you have a group to identify with which may be able to protect you in certain cases, and you may get favored treatment. Parole boards really love to hear about religious conversions.I knew a guy who fakes a religious conversion because he went to jail and he continued the deception even while the was out on parole latter. When he got off parole, that ever day, he left his wife. He was not a Christian when he went to jail. He became one in jail.


Here is the analysis of Chris Price, a friend of mine and member of the CADRE apologetics group:


Priceless comments

CADRE Comments, Oct 16,2007

First, I note that when atheists are trying to emphasize their numbers, they include agnostics and nonbelievers and skeptics among their ranks. But when they want to deemphasize their involvement in negative social characteristics, they take a more limited approach to the data. This study only mentions atheists, not unbelievers, irreligious, unbelievers, skeptics, etc. So, you may think there are more “atheists” in the United States than the data supports. Most stats at Adherents.com, for example, puts the number of “atheists” at less than 1%.

Second, atheists tend to be more privileged than the rest of the population, especially the prison population. They are predominately white, more educated, and middle class. These are typically the result of birth, which is not something for which their atheism can claim credit.

Third, the study tells us nothing about the timing or strength of religious identification. There is a strong motive to “clean up your act” in prison, complete with visits by prison chaplains and evangelists working to reform the inmates. Add to this the fact that religious conversion may be a good way to signal to others—such as the warden or parole board—that the inmate has reformed, there are ample reasons to find increased religious identification among inmates.

Fourth, your review of the data is over simplistic. For example, you ignore the fact that Protestants make up a much smaller percentage of the prison population (35%) than they do the population at large (53%). Mormons make up about 2% of the population, but are a negligible portion of the prison population. Now, this may also be linked to other issues such as income, race, or education levels.


...Actually, if you compare church attendance (and thus exposure to the preaching of Christian values) you get plenty of improved morality. This article by a self-styled "secular liberal" who is also an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia admits that "surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people."*

The article Price sites is The Third Edge
by

JONATHAN HAIDT: who is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he does research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom.

Prices comments are "priceless," but its worse than he thought. He assumes the atheist is fudging by just not including unbelievers and those who have no opinion as atheist, as they usually do. He willfully misrepresented the stats.

counter data: Swift is not a social scientist and his fabricated data is not a real study. But a large body of real social scinece proves that religious belief and participation deter crime.
Dark Larson proves there are 400 studies done by real social scientists that show that religous participation reduces the likelihood of Juvenile delinquency.

Cities on a Hill Newsletter, 1999

Dr. Larson laid the foundation for the discussion by summarizing the findings of 400 studies on juvenile delinquency,conducted during the past two decades. He believes that although more research is needed, we can say without a doubt that religion makes a positive contribution. His conclusion:“The better we study religion,the more we find it makes a difference.”

Attending services is the most significant factor in predicting charitable giving. Robert Wunthnow, Acts of Compassion, Princeton University Press, 1991.

* [] Attending services is the most significant factor in predicting volunteer activity. Ibid.

* [] Sixth through twelfth graders who attend religious services once a month or more are half as likely to engage in at-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, sexual excess, truancy, vandalism, drunk driving and other trouble with police. Search Institute, "The Faith Factor," Source, Vol. 3, Feb. 1992, p.1.

* [] Churchgoers are more likely to aid their neighbors in need than are non-attendees. George Barna, What Americans Believe, Regal Books, 1991, p. 226.

* [] Three out of four Americans say that religious practice has strengthened family relationships. George Gallup, Jr. "Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century," The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.

* [] Church attendance lessens the probabilities of homicide and incarceration. Nadia M. Parson and James K. Mikawa: "Incarceration of African-American Men Raised in Black Christian Churches." The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 125, 1990, pp.163-173.

* [] Religious practice lowers the rate of suicide. Joubert, Charles E., "Religious Nonaffiliation in Relation to Suicide, Murder, Rape and Illegitimacy," Psychological Reports 75:1 part 1 (1994): 10 Jon W. Hoelter: "Religiosity, Fear of Death and Suicide Acceptibility." Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, Vol. 9, 1979, pp.163-172.

*The presence of active churches, synagogues, or mosques reduces violent crime in neighborhoods. John J. Dilulio, Jr., "Building Spiritual Capital: How Religious Congregations Cut Crime and Enhance Community Well-Being," RIAL Update, Spring 1996.

* [] People with religious faith are less likely to be school drop-outs, single parents, divorced, drug or alcohol abusers. Ronald J. Sider and Heidi Roland, "Correcting the Welfare Tragedy," The Center for Public Justice, 1994.

* [] Church involvement is the single most important factor in enabling inner-city black males to escape the destructive cycle of the ghetto. Richard B. Freeman and Harry J. Holzer, eds., The Black Youth Employment Crisis, University of Chicago Press, 1986, p.354.

* [] Attending services at a church or other house of worship once a month or more makes a person more than twice as likely to stay married than a person who attends once a year or less. David B. Larson and Susan S. Larson, "Is Divorce Hazardous to Your Health?" Physician, June 1990. Improving Personal Well-Being

[] Most happy people are also religious people.

96% of people who say they are generally happy agree that "My religious faith is the most important influence in my life."

George Gallup, Jr. "Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century?", The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.

[] Most people who find their work exciting and fulfilling are religious people.

<65%>80% of those who say they are "excited about the future" agree that they find "comfort and support from my religious beliefs." Ibid.

[] Most people who feel close to their families are religious people.

94% of people who "feel very close" to their families agree that "my religious faith is the most important influence in my life." Ibid.

[] Eight in ten Americans say religious beliefs help them respect themselves. Ibid.

[] More than eight in ten say that their religious beliefs lead them to respect people of other religions. Ibid.

*Improving Health

[] Regular church attendance lessens the possibility of cardiovascular diseases, cirrhosis of the liver, emphysema and arteriosclerosis. George W. Comstock amd Kay B. Patridge:* "Church attendance and health."* Journal of Chronic Disease, Vol. 25, 1972, pp. 665-672.

*[] Regular church attendance significantly reduces the probablility of high blood pressure.* David B. Larson, H. G. Koenig, B. H. Kaplan, R. S. Greenberg, E. Logue and H. A. Tyroler:* " The Impact of religion on men's blood pressure."* Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 28, 1989, pp.265-278.* W.T. Maramot:* "Diet, Hypertension and Stroke." in* M. R. Turner (ed.) Nutrition and Health, Alan R. Liss, New York, 1982, p. 243.

*[] People who attend services at least once a week are much less likely to have high blood levels of interlukin-6, an immune system protein associated with many age-related diseases.* Harold Koenig and Harvey Cohen, The International Journal of Psychiatry and Medicine, October 1997.

*[] Regular practice of religion lessens depression and enhances self esteem. *Peter L. Bensen and Barnard P. Spilka:* "God-Image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control" in H. N. Maloney (ed.) Current Perspectives in the Psychology of Religion, Eedermans, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 209-224.* Carl Jung: "Psychotherapies on the Clergy" in Collected Works Vol. 2, 1969, pp.327-347.

*[] About half of religious people "have a lot of stress" in their lives, but only half of these "often get depressed." George Gallup, Jr. "Religion in America: Will the Vitality of Churches Be the Surprise of the Next Century?" The Public Perspective, The Roper Center, Oct./Nov. 1995.

*[] Church attendance is a primary factor in preventing substance abuse and repairing damage caused by substance abuse.* Edward M. Adalf and Reginald G. Smart:* "Drug Use and Religious Affiliation, Feelings and Behavior." * British Journal of Addiction, Vol. 80, 1985, pp.163-171.* Jerald G. Bachman, Lloyd D. Johnson, and Patrick M. O'Malley:* "Explaining* the Recent Decline in Cocaine Use Among Young Adults:* Further Evidence That Perceived Risks and Disapproval Lead to Reduced Drug Use."* Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 31,* 1990, pp. 173-184.* Deborah Hasin, Jean Endicott, * and Collins Lewis:* "Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Patients With Affective Syndromes."* Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol. 26, 1985, pp. 283-295. * The findings of this NIMH-supported study were repilcated in the Bachmen et. al. study above.

* This data is reprinted from RIAL Update which is edited by Robert B. Lennick and published twice a year by Religion In American Life.* Reprinting of any material in this copyright publication requires written permission from the editor.

http://www.bangor.ac.uk/rs/ms/monitoring.html

W.K. Kay and L.J. Francis Drift from the Churches: attitudes towards Christianity during childhood and adolescence, Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 1996, pp x + 266Key words: attitudes - Christianity - children - adolescents - empiricalMedium: authored bookSummary:

How and why do some young people become religious?* Are religious people happier than others?* Do church schools help pupils to develop a positive attitude toward Christianity?* What part does personal religious experience play in shaping religious attitudes?*

Twenty-five years of empirical psychological and sociological research on young people in relation to Christianity is presented here in a set of interrelated studies which show how attitude toward Christianity in young people is linked with schooling, cognitive development, masculinity and femininity, church attendance, religious experience, science, well-being, mental health and the Eysenckian model of personality.

page 2 of the argument

page 3 of the argument

Annoucement

This is just a quick announcement. In the past I have posted hap hazardly but from now on I'll be posting every MWF. Please look for new posts on those days. This friday I have a good one respoinding to artical by an atheist talking head who has lied about a study and gotten his facts from doubious sources. He is

Hrafnkell Haraldsson From the Politicus USA blog 

responding to his article "Some Hard Truths about Prayer and Crime."

More Hate Group Atheism still there

 Valenkhai

Of course, Christians have responded by saying that this person is not a "true" or "real" Christian.  How very convenient for them, and who knows?  They might actually be right.

Meta:

you are just in the process of forming the same special pleading by saying the commies aren't the kind of atheist you are or that they had other concerns that your kind of atheist doesn't have. but you want to be able to make the same unqualified simplistic diatribe against Christians that you will allow others to make about atheists.

can't you see that posting this started it. you are blind?

Valenkhai

The thing is, from my perspective, I can't make the distinction between a "true" Christian and a "fake" on because I don't think that Christianity itself is true. 

Meta:

is that really the only kind of distinction you can think of here? We have an example of a person from a third world country, primitive view point no real education and ancient primitive tribal beliefs you are going to compare that to the people who teach at Southern Methodist and Harvard and Yale divinity school?

Valenkhai

If someone says that they believe that God became human in Jesus Christ, was crucified to pay for the sins of the world and then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, I have to take them at their world and call them a Christian if they so label themselves.  If that person does things that are obviously outside orthodox (or at least modern interpretations of orthodox) Christianity, I can recognize that, but it doesn't really matter.  Not one of you follows your religion perfectly.  That fact that you are "closer" to orthodox than someone else or that you think you fall into some sort of "close enough" version of your Christianity while they fall outside into some "not true believer" category is really not relevant to me.

Metaso shallow and simplistic. how can you not lie awake at night in shame over the simplistic nature of your thinking? You are saying if someone believes the core of what Evangelicals say is the Gospel then they can't be effected by any other form of social training or conditioning or socialization or brain washing. It's just that Chrsitian thing and nothing else? That's what is so simpistic and silly. your implication is that beileving that makes you like this, into a murderer:

(1) you can't show me how believing that makes you a murderer.

(2) you assume there can't be any other basis for social behavior but that belief, that is totally irrational. The African cultures in that part of the continent have a hsitory of fearing witchcraft. why are not you not slandering African religion?


Valenkhai

I know that most interpretations of Christianity look down on the whole witch hunting thing, and that they can back that up with scriptures and theology.

Meta:
you know that but you are going to generalize anyway, but you don't want me to that's it right?
you are basically contradicting yourself. you assume that Christian bleief will make you murder and yet you agree that most Christians don't' hunt witches I presume you know most Christians don't want to murder children right? Did you not see the document I posted that said Catholics are fighting it?

The only thing I see atheists doing is using it to slander Christians.

Originally Posted by Valekhai

Cool. Could you give me a hypothetical situation to show how someone can get from a position of "I don't believe in gods" to a position where they feel it is necessary to commit mass murder? In the interest of fairness, I'll give a hypothetical to demonstrate how someone can go from basic Christian beliefs to burning witches.

Meta

what you are leaving out is the fact that witch burning in the West was stopped by Christians! it was primarily Christian thinkers i the enlightenment who stopped the practice in Europe. you wan tot label all Chrsitians in the same way, you want to put out that all Christians would burn witches. you have no facts, you have not stats. European pagans burned witches. all cultures in the world have had periods of fear of witch craft.
The atheists under Stalin thought they were right and that anyone supporting Christianity was an obstructionist who was holding up the revolution.

Valenkhai

Say there's a person living in Africa who has grown up with local superstitions, including believing in witches. Eventually this person meets Christian missionaries who tell him the story of the Gospels.

 Meta

here's another level of your naivete. it's not missionaries who take the Gospel to Africa. It has been generically African since the time Christ. The part of Africa where they took the slave trade from was Christian and had Christians in it.

But it has also had indigenous African religion which has always ben hysterically afraid of Witches.

Valenkhai

The person learns that the world and everything in it was created by the one true God, that mankind sinned against God, and the Jesus the Son of God, came to Earth and performed miracles, was crucified to atone for mankind's sin, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven. The person also learns that the Bible is God's word. The person believes all of this, repents for his sins, and becomes baptized.

 Meta:

you are trying to stick Christianity with being a causal agent in oppressive acts because you don' t like it's doctrine and so you are trying to hand the problem so the doctrine you don't like. But you don't have any data to support you in doing this. That's the kind of thing that could be learned through polls and surveys. Yet you have no data to back it up at all. My stuff against Zuckerman's lies offers concrete data agaisnt the hypothesis.

not all Christians would say that. if you knew even a tiny bit about Christianity beyond the simplistic garage your atheist brain washers have told you you would know that that is a stereotype and exaggeration and it doe not fit most Christians.

Valenkhai

This person is by no means a theology scholar, but he has gone through all of the basic qualifications to say that he a believer, that he is "saved."
Now, lets also say that this person receives a Bible printed in his own language. He begins to read it and comes across Deuteronomy 18, which supports his previous belief that witches are real. He also comes across Exodus 22:18 that states "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Believing that the Bible is the Word of God, this person concludes that it is morally correct to kill witches.

what does that mean in a 3d world country with no real education (not to say that 3d word has no real education but it just depends) and where they might have a Christianity mixed up with native ideas.

Now, you can argue that if this person continued reading the New Testament and had a better understanding of the scriptures and their context, the fact remains that a Christian, using nothing except basic Christian concepts and verses from the Bible, can indeed think that killing witches is acceptable, even commanded. To say that Christianity provides no support for those actions is false.

Meta

how many overall have been killed by the witch hunters? No where near 100 million right? right.NOWHERE NEAR THAT MANY!

you are also trying to say that any exposure to Chrsitain thinking will lead to this kind of thing even though the wrong understanding? Why don't the majoity of Chrsitians kill children?




here's what they wound up saying:

Originally Posted by souper genyus

I know a Dutch person that uses that phrase a lot. Is that a popular saying over there?

I'll also advise Meta to build a bridge and get over it.

 two different one's said that.