Stupid Monkey Responds

atheist reasoning is circular: like
a dog chasing it's tial

He starts out by saying "you are dense" to me. It turns out he's saying it because he doesn't know what circular reasoning is, so he's just saying that since I don't cow tow to a bunch of badly understood atheist slogans such as "the believer has the burden of proof" which had nothign to do with the circular reasoning issue. Now he comes back demonstrates even more ignorance about the major points of contention for Atheistwatch.

Stupid Monkey

Another comment that you made that I must address is that atheism is an ideology. Although you have (or claim to have) a PHD in theology, I see things still have to be defined for you.
An ideology is a set of aims and ideas, especially in politics. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.

Ideology is more than aims and beliefs. I have actually quoted other sources in defining it.


Wiki defeines it as:

i·de·ol·o·gy/ˌīdēˈäləjē/

Noun:

A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism". The ideas and manner of thinking of a group, social class, or individual: "a critique of bourgeois ideology".

That's hardly the most authoritative. I did say nothing that would contradict the idea that ideology is a set of ideas and aims. He's actually to criticize my understanding of it knowing about my understanding of it.

Webster's online:

Definition of IDEOLOGY

1

: visionary theorizing

2

a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

— ide·ol·o·gist \-jist\ noun

See ideology defined for English-language learners »

See ideology defined for kids »

This is a far cry from his assertion that atheism is just the absence of a belief. Take his definition of ideology asw ideas and aims, that's more than just the absence of a belief. So when I say that atheism is an ideology am I contradicting his definition? No, nor is his definition an argument agaisnt my assertion that atheism is an ideology. they have a set of ideas and aims that they are working to enact, the destruction of religion, and the totalitarian control of ideas and thinking in relation to reality.

this whole website is proof that atheism is an ideology. All one need do is read the site to see that I've proved over and over again.

Atheism is simply a nonbelief in a deity.

that's bull shit. I've disproved it over and over again. Go the ideology page on my site "on the Barricades" where I list the greatest hits of Atheistwatch.

Ideology of the New Atheist Movement
Marxist writer for the Guardian points out the
New Atheist Ideology.

Clear and Present Danger
atheist attitudes toward mocking and ridicule of opponents
cross references on "Atheist hate and bullying."

Orwellian Atheism
several articles on how atheist propaganda uses
language and it's similarity to George Orwell's
totalitarians.

Atheists Use Mocking and Ridicule as Brian Washing
This is how they brain wash on message board, through the use of
mocking and ridicule.
see more on mocking and ridicule as brain washing under organized
hate and bullying.

That's it, plain and simple. What sir, I ask you, does this make you believe atheism falls into this category?

I have proved that it does. read the articles. read the website. The several hundred spots on this blog from a gain patchwork that proves it.

Please don't make the common mistake that most do. Do not combine things like Secularism, humanism and Naturalism to atheism. Can atheist be those things; yes. Are they mutually exclusive to one another? The fact that you think they are shows your ignorance no matter what level of education you claim to have.

That's just part of the propaganda of atheism to deny their complicity. Obviously those are all the same. Who are naturalists? they are atheist. what philosophy do atheists share? naturism. Most of they are humanists although there are anti- humanitist atheist. There is no orgaized clearr cut philosophy of naturalism in America. So that' just a catch all phrase and mos of the people it would apply to are atheists.

The rest of your comment is nothing but blathering ranting about social atheistic agendas with nothing to back it up. Small minded insults from a small mind.

You have such a great track record of ignoring ideas and not getting the point, when you say this it's a sure sign you don't understand. you are just erasing the evidence fo my view probably.
You can't deal with something that's over your head so like a child you call it stupid and tell it to get a life, that way you don't have to read about it.

Now on to your original blog post. Yes you have a point; circular reasoning and burden of proof are NOT the same thing. Yeah, duh! The contrived example you give of atheistic circular reason is set up specifically to put one point of argument in a light that favors your point of view and is not a real representation of an argument. The argument would go more like,

well Duh that's the point I was making! That was the issue I was dealing with. It's pretty wide spread since it covers the whole naturalistic rejection of miracles, SN and anything not naturalistic and not in their ideology.

you come on with that stupid atheist all purpose attack "you have the burden of proof." which is misapplied because that does not mean that anything I say it automatically unproved. Secondly, becuase it's not true except the rare circumstanced that I claim to be able to prove something. The burden of proof for any argument is always with the person who asserts the argument. A lot of atheists think the believer in God always has the burden to prove God exists before rationality can attributed to that person as a whole. That's errant nonsense. It applies if you say "I can prove God exits."

If you say "God does not exist" you have the burden to prove he does not exist. He who asserts an argument must prove that argument!

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." <--this is the change. The question is then, what pile of fact do you have. Show them to me.

Your base has a structural fallacy and you know it.

nope that is the way the conversation had developed on message boards over and over again. I've done it hundreds of times. I've been arguing with atheits on boards since 1998 and I've had conversation at least several hundred times.

I do find it hilarious as you sit there on your computer (which science has given you)

this is anther stupid little bromide atheists use. ti's meaningless but they think it's cleaver. that in itself should prove they are intellectually inferior to Christians. why should I be grateful to science as though it's some kind of god or deity giving me a blessing of the computer? If the atheist world view is true, there's no deity called "science" to be grateful too, and there's no deity of fortune that conspired to make computers. There's only human intelligence that figured it out. There's more to that statement. their basic reason for making it that they think it backs the fortress of facts. They are saying "hey this is proof that we have the scientific facts on our side becasue we can prove science works, since we have this gadget and ou can't prove God works becuase God believers didn't make computers. (which is an assertion they can't prove).

The basic assumption here is (1) science gives them a fortress of facts, works for them and not for believers.

(2) that the fortress of facts proves they have all the facts on their side.

(3) science is somehow atheist.

All of these concepts are fallacious. Science is not a fortress of facts, it's not intrinsically atheist it's not anti-religious and it doesn't' prove anything about the atheist world view that computers work.

If we want to be grateful for scinece let's be grateful to God who gave us brains so we can invent scinece and discover his creation.



Here's a statement me makes that's going to confirm my assertions about his statements above.

and knock the validity of it. Is science the only truth? Perhaps not for there are no absolute truths. But for practical reasons, yes science is the only truth that can be validated and tested. Your belief in jeebus cannot be. Atheism is not a belief, religion or ideology.

where is your proof that there are no absolute truths? He who makes an argument prove it. So where is the proof? "Science is the only truth that can be validated and tested." This is a total misunderstanding of the nature of scinece. We validate scientific concepts through verification and falsification because we can't prove them. That's what Popper says about scientific proof, all we can really do is disprove we can't actually prove anything. Science is not a big fortress of facts. The fortress of facts concept is selective. It excludes facts and scientific work that disproves atheist concepts. When you find something like the 300 studies that prove religious participation is good for you they dismiss them compelled without investigation.

but the whole argument I originally made about circular reasoning of naturalism also proves this. They are not disproving miracles, they aren't proving that miracles don't happen, they are dismissing miracle claims dogmatically because they don't jibe with their ideology of naturalism. He does nothing at all to disprove this. All he's doing is diverting our attention form the original issue by inserting the stand athist propaganda slogans about being grateful to scinece.


then to prove how cleaver he is he profanes the name of his savior which is in emulation of Homer Simpson. That's a fitting comparison, this guy who doesn't understand the issues he's playing into is so proud to bel ike Homer Simpson.

The fact that you state an atheist agenda is purely absurd. Let me ask you this. Scientist have been looking for the answers for centuries now. As it is not a perfect system, yes findings are changed and reevaluated on the facts and evidence that are in existence. Science is fluid in its pursuit of knowledge, not static.

This bull shit betrays a total ignorance of scinece. The idea that scinece is looking for some batch of propaganda called "the answers" implies that there's some single set of truths that open up the universe for us and explain everything. He's already ruled that out by saying there's no absolute truth. When blessed by the scientific quest this conglomeration of non absolute turth somehow becomes 'the answers!" what does this mean but that they have an ideology!

That is not scinece. Science has not board of elders that set's out a unified quest for "the answers." That is ideology. Convoluted, historically tainted, derivative of 1939 world's fair reasoning.

If any evidence was good enough to be viewed as life changing, where are the peer review papers, the journals etc.

In the journal articles that I site obviously. You might try reading the evidence for a change. It's in a little thing I like to "old no 7." No 7 on my God argument list, argument co-determinate.

Research Summary

From Council on Spiritual Practices Website

"States of Univtive Consciousness"

Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:

Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.

Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.
Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.

Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.

Lester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)

Long-Term Effects

Wuthnow:

*Say their lives are more meaningful,
*think about meaning and purpose
*Know what purpose of life is
Meditate more
*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities
*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends
*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy
*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style

Noble:

*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness
*Less authoritarian and dogmatic
*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient
*intelligent, relaxed
*High ego strength,
*relationships, symbolization, values,
*integration, allocentrism,
*psychological maturity,
*self-acceptance, self-worth,
*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,
*increased love and compassion

I don't mean papers written here and there by creationists (which I understand that you claim you are not), but the articles and studies done by main stream science?

None of them are creationists junior. I am not a creationist. you have to learn to think so stop pretending like your enemies are all the same villain. All you need to do is label someone and you win the argument. that's doesn't work when you come up against a real scholar. so you have to actually do some reading here. All the studies I site are done by psychologists, not creationists, real actual social scientists and they are all published in valid academic journals, all 200 of them.

Scientists would be winning Nobel prizes for showing the existence of god or any deity for that matter.

That shows total ignorance of the way science works. You know scinece only through atheist slogans. Many nobel winners are Christans or other believers in God but no one does scietnific work to prove the existence of God because Go dis not in scietnifc domaon, that's understanding flat out. If you knew anything about science you would know about domains. God is in philosophy domain not scinece. God is the basis upon wihc reality coheres that means he's too be to be empirical. God is not a thing in creation he's not naturalistic so he can't be an object of empirical research.

Religion has never had a leg to stand on by itself. It attaches itself to social and political venues to make itself seem correct. Alone, it falls apart.

that's the atheist propaganda ideology that you are reciting. you don't know what it means but it's a slogan derived form the ideology of scinece. It's based upon the fortress of facts misconception it's just total bull shit.It has no facts to support it because all the alleged facts of the fortress are merely propaganda slogans.

The kicker is you are saying that is just an example fo the same kind of circular reasoning I was talking about to begin with. You are merely asserting on the basis of past dismissal that nothing had been established. that's the becasue the evidence was ignored in the first place. It's just circular reasoning.

"Center for Inquiry" Poll of religion is Atheist Propaganda.

Today an estimated sixteen percent of Americans—or about 49 million American men, women, and children—live without religious affiliation.^* As a group, religiously unaffiliated Americans are more numerous than any single religious denomination except Roman Catholics.

They are more numerous than Hispanic Americans or African Americans ... more numerous than the estimated gay and lesbian population … more than seven times as numerous as American Jews … more than fifteen times as numerous as religiously active American Jews.

Not all of the religiously unaffiliated would describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, but recent studies suggest that the actively nonreligious make up about two-thirds of this population, with spiritual seekers and persons between church affiliations making up the rest.

How do we know these things? Recent—and authoritative—data comes from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) and from surveys conducted in association with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. ARIS studies in 1990, 2001, and 2008 documented the doubling of “nones” (people declaring no religious affiliation). Studies by Pew and other researchers have confirmed this pattern and offered more detailed information on the makeup of this fast-growing group. For example, a 1994 Pew-University of Akron study gave us our most detailed portrait of the people who make up the unaffiliated 16 percent. It found that about a third of this group identifies itself using labels like atheist and agnostic. Another third does not use these labels, but when asked about their lifestyle (church attendance, beliefs about life, and the like) is otherwise almost identical with the first group; pollsters call these the hard seculars. Combined, self-identified atheists and agnostics and the hard seculars make up 10.7 percent of the total population, equivalent to two-thirds of the unaffiliated. Spiritual seekers and persons without current church affiliation make up the balance.

Many Americans imagine that they don’t know a single person who lives without religion. Yet if confirmed nonreligious people compose 10.7 percent of the population … and if one American in six has no religious affiliation … how likely does that seem? Or is it more likely that you already know neighbors, friends, colleagues, schoolmates, or family members who live without religion?

* NOTE: According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Popclock, as of February 22, 2011, the U.S. population is 310,868,110. Sixteen percent of this = 49,738,898 religiously unaffiliated Americans of all ages.

Back to Home

Today an estimated sixteen percent of Americans—or about 49 million American men, women, and children—live without religious affiliation.^* As a group, religiously unaffiliated Americans are more numerous than any single religious denomination except Roman Catholics.

They are more numerous than Hispanic Americans or African Americans ... more numerous than the estimated gay and lesbian population … more than seven times as numerous as American Jews … more than fifteen times as numerous as religiously active American Jews.

Not all of the religiously unaffiliated would describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, but recent studies suggest that the actively nonreligious make up about two-thirds of this population, with spiritual seekers and persons between church affiliations making up the rest.

How do we know these things? Recent—and authoritative—data comes from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) and from surveys conducted in association with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. ARIS studies in 1990, 2001, and 2008 documented the doubling of “nones” (people declaring no religious affiliation). Studies by Pew and other researchers have confirmed this pattern and offered more detailed information on the makeup of this fast-growing group. For example, a 1994 Pew-University of Akron study gave us our most detailed portrait of the people who make up the unaffiliated 16 percent. It found that about a third of this group identifies itself using labels like atheist and agnostic. Another third does not use these labels, but when asked about their lifestyle (church attendance, beliefs about life, and the like) is otherwise almost identical with the first group; pollsters call these the hard seculars. Combined, self-identified atheists and agnostics and the hard seculars make up 10.7 percent of the total population, equivalent to two-thirds of the unaffiliated. Spiritual seekers and persons without current church affiliation make up the balance.

Many Americans imagine that they don’t know a single person who lives without religion. Yet if confirmed nonreligious people compose 10.7 percent of the population … and if one American in six has no religious affiliation … how likely does that seem? Or is it more likely that you already know neighbors, friends, colleagues, schoolmates, or family members who live without religion?

* NOTE: According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Popclock, as of February 22, 2011, the U.S. population is 310,868,110. Sixteen percent of this = 49,738,898 religiously unaffiliated Americans of all ages.

Back to Home

New atheist study fudges data to create propaganda. This is a poll done by Center for Inquiry. CFI is nothing more than an atheist propaganda machine and their mission statement basically say so. I'll get to that in a minute. Their poll came up first on Google when I put in the question "what percentage of Americas are self defined atheists?"

The big head line of the study "one out of every Six Americans has no religious affiliation." Assuming that was true, (which it's not becuase it's assinign if you know the studies) it seems totally taken for granted that having no religious affiliation is a bad thing for religion. I'm not sure that's true. They are equating it with unbelief and that's not right. Here's their pie chart break down:

Unaffiliated 16%.
Evangelical Protestant 12%
Evangelical Baptist 11%
Other religions 37%
Catholic 24%

What's wrong with this picture? Do we really think that with the tea party blazing and right wing hysteria foaming that the largest religious group in America is "other religions?" This is totally ludicrous. I fyou study the Pew study, which is the major valid best study done in 2007 (to date the state of the art) on religious land scape in America one can see how they have fudged on this. for one thing all studies give Chrisiantiy at least 75% or more. This one gives it (adding all the Catholic, protestant, and Baptist(?) Christinty as a whole only has 44%.

It is inconceivable to me that just since 2007 things changes this drastically. Here's the Pew findings:


unaffiliated 16%
Evangelical protestant 26% *(not 12)
Catholic 23%
Mormon 1.7%
Historically Black chruches 6.9%
Mainline Protestants 18.1% (separate from Evangelical protestant)
Other Christian 0.3%
Other religions 0.3% (Pew also adds to "other" Jews 1.7%, Muslim 0.6% what it calls "other faiths" as distinct from major world religions, in that slot they put unitarians, new age, mind scinece and so = 1.2%). While CFI has a whopping 37% the better study by far, Pew, has abotu 2%. How

Breaking down the unaffiliated at the top, Pew lists atheists as 1.6%. not 16, but 1.6. If you see my page on Doxa about how atheists inflate their numbers, there are several studies that show atheists down around that figure. Pew figure is the most conservative. Adherent's.com gives them 4%. Gallop in May 2008 give 3% with 3% margin (so between 3-6%).


you see they split Baptist from Protestant for some absurd reason because Baptists are protestants of course. Makes both groups seem smaller. Then they just ignored half the Christian population.

The reason for these discrepancies is not far to seek. CFI is a propaganda wing of the Atheist movement and all do to know this is look at their mission statement. One might also take note they own Skeptical Inquirer Magazine.. Their mission statments pulls no punches in admitting they are out to destroy religion.



mission Statement of CFI.

The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.

That's the head line on the mission statement. That's no atheist propaganda is it? It's even touting their rhetoric.

To oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present, the world needs an institution devoted to promoting science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.

To oppose and supplant. Supplant means to replace, to destroy. Like all good little dawkies they confuse scinece with hating religion. Their aim they state clearly to destroy religion. why should we believe they are above lying to achieve that end? We know they don't believe in truth. Their little solider have fabricated data before. I have no evidence on CFI but I have shown atheist websites that just out and out fabricate the statistics. If this is guilt by assocaition one might look at the wildly off target statistics above. Giving 34% to "other religions" when the valid study gives 2%. This survey wasn't done yesterday. Things couldn't change that much since 2007.

more of the mission statement:

At the Center for Inquiry, we believe that evidence-based reasoning, in which humans work together to address common concerns, is critical for modern world civilization. Moreover, unlike many other institutions, we maintain that scientific methods and reasoning should be utilized in examining the claims of both pseudoscience and religion. We reject mysticism and blind faith. No topic should be placed off limits to scrutiny—certainly not fringe science and religion, which have an enormous influence on beliefs and conduct.

If they knew anything about mysticism they would know that it's backed with empirical scientific evidence. They are using that as a pejorative catch phrase that means any and all religion.

We also maintain that values are properly the subject of study and discussion as much as empirical claims. The Center for Inquiry studies and promotes human values based on a naturalistic outlook. Ideological doctrine and religious dogma have no more right to dictate our moral norms than they do to influence scientific research.

That's exactly what their rhetoric has spelled out, ideological doctrine. Look at the obvious philosophical contradiction: "values are properly the subject of study and discussion as much as empirical claims" that means we will teach you to hate religion too. then they ahve the gall to say "Ideological doctrine and religious dogma have no more right to dictate our moral norms than they do to influence scientific research." That statement is ideolgoical in and of itself. To make good on that they have to argue for a philosophical ethical position that has to be justified by argument. They are merely presenting their own ideology and dogma. When they talk about values they stepping beyond the limits of science. Science is not about teaching values.When religious believes talk about values they holding up the progress of science.

The Center for Inquiry supports research, but our mission activities go far beyond sound scholarship.

they sure do! there you have it folks a frank admission of what I'm saying. Going beyond includes lying and fabricating numbers!

The Center for Inquiry, and its affiliates, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, also carry out their work through education, publishing, advocacy, and social services. The Center for Inquiry has established dozens of regional centers and communities, which provide a means of delivering educational programs and services on a local level and provide a venue for like-minded individuals to meet and share experiences. In addition, the Center for Inquiry has affiliates and sponsors programs in many different countries. A secular society ultimately should embrace all of humanity, not just selected countries.

what they are describing is the actives of a political campaign. I think this violates their 501c(3)

that statement tells us they are a propaganda machine. I am not trying to accuse all "humanist" of being in a conspiracy, but it's obvious there is an organized group making war on Christianity. We have to oppose them by spreading truth.

ABC Poll = 38% of Americans are Christian, 48% of world.

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.

That's quite different from the world at large: Fifty-two percent of the world's population is non-Christian, compared to 4 percent in the United States; and one-third is Christian, compared to 83 percent in the United States. (These are rough comparisons, because the world figures, reported by the Encyclopedia Britannica, are for the full population, while the U.S. figures are among adults only.)

Non Christian religions given 4% no Religion in America 13% (somewhere in that 13% is the atheists).

CNN (not the best)= 75% say Christian in America (2009)

Seventy-five percent of Americans call themselves Christian, according to the American Religious Identification Survey from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. In 1990, the figure was 86 percent.

Newswek Poll = 81% self identified Christian in America (2009)

By Audrey Barrick

Christian Post Reporter

Wed, Apr. 08 2009 11:50 AM EDT

A new Newsweek poll reveals that although most Americans are still holding on to their faith and describing themselves as Christians, fewer believe religion can answer today’s problems.

According to the poll of 1,003 adults, released Tuesday, 60 percent of American adults say religion is very important in their lives and 78 percent say prayer is an important part of their daily lives.However, less than half (48 percent) believe religion can answer all or most of today’s problems. The percentage is the lowest number Newsweek has recorded since it began polling Americans on that issue in 1957 (when 82 percent believed religion could answer the problems of that time).

Washington Post reports on poll in 2009 that finds the group that says it has no religion is at 15% That doesn't mean atheits are at 15%. 12% of the "no religion group" doesn't' mean they don't believe in some kind of God it means they have organized religion. Most polls don't bother to make that distinction but the better one's do.

Gallop = self id Chrsitians in America at 77%. this is probably the same survey all those above are keyed to, it was actually done in 2008, just a year after the Pew study came out.

Answering Rex: Why are Atheists so unable to understand concepts?

Blogger Rex said...

Atheism is not a "belief". It is simply the lack of "belief" in a deity.

Meta

that's nothing more than a slogan of propaganda that you have suckered into believing. Atheism is a con game. It's obviously not true becuase one can clearly see from what atheist always say it's a total world view.

Rex

It is irrational to believe in something for which there is no evidence, ergo, a - theism.

that's another propaganda slogan that suckers like you accept because it's for people who aren't bright and don't know much. The truth is the criteria for acceptance of belief is very complex. There are no quick and easy fact that demonstrate what is ratinoal to believe. But religious belief is demonstrated more rational in a hundred ways.

Rex

Think of it as a - unicornism. You do share my a - unicornism, right?

name calling. that's just like the use of the N word.

Rex

There is ample evidence for the existence of the universe, for deities, not so much.

there is no such thing as a plurality of deities. The atheist because he is obsessed with "things" and can't think in conceptual terms reduces the concept of God to a "thing" rather than a basis for everything. Because of this conceptual mistake he is not intellectually capable of seeing the necessity for belief.

Rex

But let me ask you a couple questions, Mr. I Have All Of The Answers: What is the cause for god? What created god?

another example of the atheist intellectually inferior outlook. Duh they can't get it through their heads. Thins need causes, the basis of things does not!

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

What was there before god?

Yet more evidence of the atheist problem of understanding concepts. What part of "No beginning" is so hard for these poor intellectually deficient creatures to grasp?

It is very hard for someone who loves ideas to grasp that this kind of person can't understand concepts.

Rex

Something from nothing seems to really bother you, does the same logic apply to your superstition?

I don't have a superstition. anyone who can't understand the concept of "eternal" or of "no beginning no ending" can't understand the distinction between philosophy and superstition.

something from nothing is obviously a contradiction to the basis of naturalistic cause and effect this just demonstrates eh contradiction in atheism argument--it also shows who unable to consider concepts atheists really are.

Rex

Someone as learned and esteemed as yourself surely has these answers right? Answer your big bang questions about god.

I just gave them to you.

If your answers actually make rational sense, you will get bonus points, but I am not holding my breath.

Unfortunately in order to understand the answers you would have to actually not have the problem with learning and with concepts that you clearly have.

These are also atheist propaganda slogans that may be why they have such problems with concepts. The brain washing tells them these slogans that prevent them from really thinking deeply about the issues.

When God Becomes a Drug: An Excercize In Atheist Propganganda

Poster Bill Walker (a follower of this blog) going for the "big one" trying to de-convert me )on (Metacrock's Blog) introduces a book:

There is a book that I think may help you. "When God Becomes a Drug.By Bart Aikins. Please vdon't feel that this is a criticism of you. You are a victim- one of countless millions. I am rooting for you.

On the comment page he says:

Joe, I read all of you post. I know you had a tough time. I'm glad you have that bgehind you. Bu god/jesus had nothing to do with it. Ple4ase Joe, read " When God Becomes a Drug." Joe this book w2as written for YOU. You have nothing to lose but your delusions. Join us at ExChristian.net. You will be as welcome as the flowers in May. Share your experiences & your thoughts with us. You may write as a Xian or a former Xian. Many people start with us as Xians, & are 'won over'. But you are very welcome to make posts as a Xian. It is POSSIBLE that you can make some4one revert to Xianity, thru reasoning, tho I haven't seen anyone who did that, to my knowledge. But I reaslly think it will give you the experiences & thoughts of other people who have suffered as you did.

So I looked for this book. I found that He got the author's name so totally wrong it makes me think he's putting me on. Instead Bart Aikins it's Leo Booth. Booth is an Episcopal priest who wrote this book not as a denouncement of all religon but as a warning against the kind of rigid fundamentalism we all know and hate. He is in no way saying that all religion is like this. As one book reviewer says:

"And yet he says that there is nothing in the nature of religion which makes it unhealthy in itself, and that it is possible for a neurotic to use a healthy belief system in an unhealthy way. Booth writes that it is not necessarily the contents of the belief that make a system addictive, but rather the personal rigidity of its purveyors who discourage any kind of questioning or disbelief."
--John A. Speyrer

In spite of this we find the atheist having a field day in their propaganda using this book as though it totally disproves all religion. Shy David's Religion page, (there's a scholarly source for you) does a hack job on the book. Sky David is so balanced and fair minded he opens with the balanced and articulate statement:

Religion has always been used by evil men (and some times women) to inflict evil upon the world. The evil enacted is always either by design or by consequence. The latter generally has two causes: the person engaged in evil believes he is doing good, godly works, or another person or groups of people take the result of someone's good works and builds upon those works with evil acts. A specific example I can readily think of is Islam: when Mohammed founded his religion, he taught liberal reforms such as equality for females and tolerance for infidels. One problem, though: he was illiterate. When the Koran / Qur’an / Alcoran was written by his followers, Mohammed's teachings were drastically altered. Slavery of women became law; infidels were taken hostage and, upon threat of death, ordered to convert; women who did not sexually submit to their owners could be beaten, with the authority of law.

nothing polemical there is there!? He has a link to a page using the book for propaganda. He presents a chart used in the book but takes it out of context by giving no basis in understandign what the book is really about:

THE TWELVE STEPS FOR RELIGIOUS ADDICTS
(TWELVE STEPS TO RELIGIOUS ADDICTION)

1. We admitted that we were powerless over our dysfunctional religion or beliefs -- that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Spiritual Power WITHIN OURSELVES could guide us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to this Spiritual Power as we understood this Spiritual Power.

4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our dysfunctional religious beliefs and behaviours.

5. Admitted to our Spiritual Power, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of those behaviours.

6. Were entirely ready to work with our Spiritual Power in replacing all those old behaviours.

7. Worked with our Spiritual Power to help replace our dysfunctional patterns.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we made mistakes, promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with our Spiritual Power, as we understood Spiritual Power, praying only for knowledge of that Power's guidance and the willingness to carry it out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Of cousre he offers no data whatsoever that religion is addiction, that one can make an analogy form drugs/alcohol to religion or belief systems. No studies, no evidence, the whole thing is based upon hating religion enough to compare it to soemthing it's nto even remotly like but something negative (alcohol). The whole thing is nothing but argument from analogy.

He also offers a list of 'signs' of addiction similarly glaned form misreading the book:

Taken from When God Becomes A Drug by Leo Booth.

SYMPTOMS OF RELIGIOUS ADDICTION

1. Inability to think, doubt, or question information or authority

2. Black-and-white, simplistic thinking

3. Shame-based belief that you aren't good enough, or you aren't "doing it right"

4. Magical thinking that God will fix you

5. Scrupulosity; rigid, obsessive adherence to rules, codes of ethics, or guidelines

6. Uncompromising, judgmental attitudes

7. Compulsive praying, going to church or crusades, quoting scripture

8. Unrealistic financial contributions

9. Believing that sex is dirty -- that our bodies and physical pleasures are evil

10. Compulsive eating or excessive fasting

11. Conflict with science, medicine, and [secular] education

12. Progressive detachment from the real world, isolation, breakdown of relationships

13. Psychosomatic illness: sleeplessness, back pains, headaches, hypertension

14. Manipulating scripture or texts, feeling chosen, claiming to receive special messages from God

15. Trancelike state or religious high, wearing a glazed happy face

16. Cries for help; mental, emotional, physical breakdown; hospitalization

Most of those could also be used of atheism, or fashion deign or just about anything you wanted to compere.

Inability to think, doubt, or question information or authority

Black-and-white, simplistic thinking

sure sounds like atheism to me. Here's a trick. he doesn't give any page numbers or context so you have no idea how faithful he is to what the book is saying. Now does an Episcopal priest really say that reading the bible to clam oneself is the begining of religious addiction?

Y STAGE:

• * Ordinary religious or spiritual lifestyle
• # Using Bible to calm nerves

• * Excessive church-going / Bible study
• # Praying before attending functions
• # Church / Bible becomes greater focal point

• * Using church / Bible / prayer to avoid problems
• # Black-and-white thinking increases
• # Missing family gatherings or work because of religious functions

• * Compulsively thinking about or quoting scripture
• * Preoccupation with church / Bible study
• # Thinking only of church

These could apply to any Christian, non Christian even non religious people. It could apply people who like classical music. Anyone who lived through the 60's remembers arguments about pot leads to heroine. This is the same kind of reasoning. Those arguments were usually countered by Milks leads to pot.

This really represents the most innane slip shod thinking. If this does not qualify as a hate group strategy what does? It's on a par with Blacks are lazy and Mexicans steal. Or is it Mexicans are lazy and blacks steal? I'm forgotten my old time Texan prejudice 101.

Of course the atheist propagnda brigage who comment on books on Amazon, books they probalby have not read:

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Helped me see my fears that i displaced for "God", January 3, 2008

By	A. Mendelovitz - See all my reviews

This review is from: When God Becomes a Drug: Book 1; Understanding Religious addiction & religious abuse (Paperback)

This book is amazing. i read the older version. It taught me how what i thought was certain powers and divine messages and things the world was showing me were really my own fears that i misplaced and transformed into a god. This book and the help i later recieved from a therapist were able to return me back to society in a more wordly way. This book was fantastic in that it helped show me how when i was suffering i was creating false illusions and ways out of it through God thinking that God would solve all my problems, when in fact i needed to confront my emotional issues in real life. I am very greatful for Father Leo for taking me out of my religous persecution i was brining on my self and showing me how i was torturing myself emotionally in the name of God. How these tortures were not based on God but on my own fears and my desires to heal myself. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who feels that they are treating themselves poorly in the name of god. For example anyone beaeting themselves up believing sex or masterbation is wrong while it is a gift the earth has granted us.

I know religion is stupid now. I can't wait to get on the secular web and be patted on the back and called "smart" for a change. that god stuff is all for stupid people. They keep slinging words around like "addiction" and 12 step with no medical evidence, no psychological studies. No spiritually mature person would give up a relationship with God just because some ultra liberal unbelieving priest suggested that belief in God's spiritual reality is an "addiction." That person is a mindless drown who can't think for her self. This just continues to prove that atheists can't paly fair, can't think, don't understand very much.

"The Painful Truth"
book Review by Gary L.

Anyone who has ever tried to challenge a religious addict's belief system has undoubtedly been met with hostility bordering on fury. People who are spiritually healthy will not react with fear and anger to questions about their beliefs and practices.

Healthy spirituality in contrast is freeing; differing beliefs or even outright opposition do not threaten you. The symptoms of religious addiction point to a narrow, restrictive belief system, which limits your spiritual growth and victimizes you as well as those around you

Again, no data, no proof ther is such a thing as "religious addiction." If that is the case is there Addiction to art? To classical music? To being nice? Isn't everything and addiction? How about breathing and eating food? It started out with just a little milk now and then and now I have to have red meat all the time.

The real tragedy is how these people will never bother to read the real studies about religious eperince and its transfomrative effects on people's lives. 300 studies show that religion is the best thing for you. It transformas your life dramatically, it's taken people off drugs and stopped Heroin addiction and Alcohol. They want to shut down trust of God and they want you to stop praying to stop believing that God will help you. Instead of trying to understand these things in wisdom and not be stupid about it they are so self serving they have to try and destroy the best thing there is. The research I've done for my book points me toward the Rosario study which shows that religious experience and spiritual practice turns the lives of chronically ill and "challenged" ("handy capped") into positive growth situations that make them able to cope and enable them to grow as people. These are not things that drugs do for you. This is the not the result of addiction.

Now you can believe the hate group propaganda which lies and distorted the evidence, (Booth has no evidence to begin with he himself is a recovering Alcoholic so he's just following the only model he knows becuase he has not had the good religious experiences) or you can look at the scientific studies and see what's proved about the nature of religious experience. But we see the atheist hate group propaganda for what it is.




My religious experience argument which talks about many of the studies

Argument from religious instinct which employs many of the studies and talks about their Trans formative effects

The Mohan article with bibliography where he describes what many of the most recent studies say. Mohan is a practicing psychiatrist unlike Booth.

there are books arguing that atheism is personality disorder. For example Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing a Distorted Mindset Fr. John J. Pasquini (Author)

That book is not very good either, it's as bad as Booth's. It's the same thing the atheist are doing. but two can play at this game. All this atheist propaganda is going to accomplish is just more of the same.