Atheists Call for "Eradication" of "mind virus" (belief in God): Is it a Clear and Present Danger Yet?

 


John Loftus on the Debuncting Christianity Blog lauds a "new Atheist" radical who reveals a real Draconian agenda for dealing with Christianity. Now I don't believe that this represents even the majority of new atheism. I don't believe that all of atheism is a conspiracy or that all atheists are full of hate or any such thing. There is a hate group segment of their community, and this is surely it. That they are getting more brazen I think is a sign that they are more desperate.

This is the title of the post by Loftus

Boghossian is Very Serious; He's a Crusader, a Radical, and I Like It!

By John W. Loftus at 11/14/2013

I have written a few posts about Peter Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating Atheists.To read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this last one I want to highlight how much of a crusader he is, a radical, and how much I like it. He is dead serious. We know this from his radical remedies for the present faith virus pandemic.

In his final chapter titled "Containment Protocols" we see this clearly. He utilizes the theme of Darrel Ray's book, God Virus, The: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, very effectively for this.

Since religious faith is a mind virus that can infect others in our society, then in order to help get rid of it we must get serious about containing it as we try to eradicate it.

"Containment?" That has a pretty ominous ring to it. One question up front if you have to create atheists that means they aer not atheists already right? So they are advocating manipulation and doing the same kinds of things they accuse Christians of doing. What makes them any better? Well we Chrsitians don't talk about containing any group of people. What does that mean? let's see....

By the way, "mind virus?" Is that a technical term? What psychiatry text book did he get that term from? Is it an actual germ. It's funny when I have argued that atheist use the concept of "meme" to accuse their opponents of being diseased they deny that it's that kind of model.

Loftus:

His remedies are radical, but important and needed.

Loftus plays the fascist card. It's need, we must set up the camps hu?

1) Use the word "faith" only in a religious context. He is calling for a change in how we use language. This is something David Eller has advocated as well as myself in our books. Boghossian: "It matters what words we use. Certain words trap us into a make-believe picture of life--one that is false and misleading" (p. 211). We should not say we have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, or other such things, where the overwhelming probabilities lead us to know without much doubt at all. You can see a list of these words in a 2009 talk I gave for the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, right here.

I don't actually hear the term "faith" used that much in a religious context. Why is that any different than using "theoretical" for imaginary scenarios like possible worlds and multiverses?

2) Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims. He argues we should deploy the models of the civil rights and the women's rights movements. Basically it should be politically incorrect to argue something based on faith. He aptly quotes Sam Harris here: "People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of society."

Here we see a truly sick mind coming into focus. Martin Luther King was a minister of Christ. By this guy's stadnards he was insane and had a mind virus. But of course he doesn't dare say that. He has the audacity and mendacity to try link atheist poison with civil rights, and belief in love and truth (Christian belief) to "racism." That is such a lie! When  did we try to make atheists sit at the back of the bus? We never passed Jim Crow laws to keep atheists in the role of second class citizens. We never lynched atheists. That they want to do these things to us is ironic becuase I've always said their term "xian" is their version of the N word. They are as filled with hate for Christians as white racists were for black people. This proves it. At least this segment of the atheist community.

3) Parrhesia: Speaking truth in the face of danger. We should not sit at the back of the segregated bus, so to speak. "Be honest. Be direct. Be blunt. Be unapologetic....Don't tone it down or talk baby talk....Instead, tell people exactly what you think and why you think it. Take a punch and give a punch. Speak truth in the place of danger be a part of Team Parrhesia" (p. 214).

By that frank admission they put themselves at the back of the bus. No one tried to force them there.

4) Stay informed. He even recommends reading faith peddlers like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig. Boghossian is so radical he recommends against buying their books new, but rather getting them second hand, so they don't profit from us in any way. 

 Faith peddelers like the greatest living metaphysician who was given the mantle of Charles Hartshorne and is a recognized expert in modal logic. This guy doesn't know what modal logic is.

5) Contribute. Do what you can. Use whatever talents you have in this cause. "Be active. Get involved. Volunteer. Vote." Contribute financially as well, to good atheist/skeptical organizations who are making a difference.

6) Experiment and publicize. "Develop your own strategies to fight the faith virus." Then publicize them in the appropriate medium, like books, magazines, podcasts, videos, documentaries, plays, editorials, songs, art works and so on.

7) Form academic-community partnerships. These partnerships take many forms. Partner with like-minded people to be more effective.

Is he trying to say they should keep Christians out of higher education?

8) Treat faith as a public health crisis. Two words: "contain" and "eradicate." We must do this with ethical and Constitutional concerns in mind, he says. Rather, "interventions need to be designed that counter the spread" of the virus. Our "containment strategy should promote the 'value' of believing on the basis of evidence."

Now we see the goal in sight. This is where it's heading. Not merely contain as said but also elminated. "eradicated?" In what way? Does he mean just convince people with logic? But apprently they are growing desperate because we don't buy their logic so it's clear they mean something else.

9) Financially cripple purveyors of false epistemologies, especially religious institutions. Take away their tax exempt status. Hell yeah! While Boghossian isn't hopeful that can be done in America anytime soon, "Ultimately, the tax-exempt status of religious organizations must be removed."

Financially crippling is a pretty serious thing. He's really dreaming big if he thinks they are going to wield he power to change the tax code against belief in God. The 3% freinge group (in fact only a segment of that) is going to wrest the tax code from 80% of the population? In fact 90% believe in God.

10) Create skeptical (atheist) children. He makes no apologies for this bold suggestion, saying, "It may seem odd: raising a child so she doesn't hold preposterous metaphysical beliefs. Strange indeed, but also vital." What he means is that "it is important to develop within our children the "attitudinal disposition to be skeptical."

They so contorting about what they allow to go on inside other people's minds. Irony of Ironies, O IR_ON_Y! the so called "free thinkers" not so free are they? They actually think they have the right to decide what you can believe and what your child is permitted to believe. They want to determine matters of philosophy and questions about reality and construct your right to think about reality. You would think these intellectually superior all knowing self appointed intellectuals would know something about history.

This is the kicker!

11) Finally, remove the religious exemption for delusion from the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (DSM). He says, "There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits classifying religious delusions as mental illness." For the reasons why he makes this statement you'll have to read them yourselves. At the very least, faith should be listed as a cognitive bias everywhere cognitive biases are listed.

He is actually saying that he wants belief in God to classified as an actual mental illness! It's not enough to just put of society agaisnt belief we have to close off the possibility of anyone wondering about it ever again by saying it's insane. That's so stupid! So narrow minded. That's far more narrow minded than racist garbage or anything a mad dog cone head ever thought of short of lynching. Why? Because it closes off all possibility of ever thinking for oneself again. All they have to do is declair anything you think as pre condition for belief. "People who want lower taxes tended to believe in God." So wanting lower taxes is a sign that yu might be wondering if there could be a God, which would mean yu are insane. In fact anyone who votes against the atheist candidate has to be thinking about belief in God so voting against their agenda is s a sure sign of mental illness.

Not understanding what forces of fascism and control are being unleashed here is just stupidity. Do we stop with Christianity or all beilef? Or what pantheism? Is that a danger becuase it might lead to theism?  The slipper slope potential is enormous. Who they hell do they think they are? What would give them the right to determine what people can wonder about? What could possibly give the arrogance to think they are so certain of their nonsense that is deserves to be enshrined as the definition of sanity?

This DSM "Bible" of psychiatry has said that S/M is not mental illness and has removed it from that definition.
on Wiki

In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association responded by modifying the denotative criteria defining “sadism” and “masochism” in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV); thus, consensual sadomasochistic behavior no longer is considered a sexual disorder. Furthermore, in the textual revision of the DSM-IV TR (2000), sadomasochistic behavior is a sexual and mental disorder if the patient “has acted on these urges with a non-consenting person” and if “the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”.^[9][10] Elsewhere, in 1995, Denmark became the first country to delete “sadomasochism” from its medical disorders system of classification.^[11]

This clown is actually saying that S/m is more normal and healthy than belief in God? "The "Janus Report on Sexual Behavior," one of the premiere academic surveys of sex practices, found in 1993 that 14 percent of men and 11 percent of women have had some sexual experience with sadomasochism." (ABC News). While 90% of Americans believe in God. That's an appeal to popularity but it does mean its too common to be thought of as a mental probelm. This guy has no data he has no backing form any psychiatric organization. Clinicians are more likely now to say that religious experience is good for you. The Allman study showed that half the clinicians have religious experience themselves and more than that say it helps their patients get better.

This lunatic is willing to alter the work of psychiatric authority  just becuase he loses arguments about philosophy to theists! That should be the definition of mentally ill!





Dawkins says:

As an urgently needed counter to this tried-and-true tradition of religious evangelism, A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it.

On CARM the idiot Deist who has been quoted here many times, chimes in to say he's "100%" in agreement.

I agree 100% with his position. If anyone has read my posts here, they will see that I don't beat around the bush or "play nice" with the Christians. They think they should get a pass, and this thinking is furthered by society doing exactly that. Danny of America talks about scoffers and scoffing as if that's a bad thing. His intent is to stigmatize non believers and ward off attacks on foolish beliefs by saying anyone who would challenge warped beliefs are scoffers.

For Danny and others, who want to use the word scoffer, have at it. I'm proud to wear that title, and I wear it with honor. I will no more discuss a resurrection as if it actually happened than I would a claim that Jesus is orbiting the Halle Bopp comet. IO refuse to give the Christians an inch on their contentions that homosexuality is a choice, and will continue to scoff at their ignorance on this topic. I will not give them the latitude of trying to contend that Jesus abolished OT law, when it clearly says he did NOT.

We should not continue to let them get away with their chicanery, double speak, obfuscation and crazy claims. They are ruinous to society. Let them have God. Let them win that argument, but never, ever, ever let them contend a man rose from the dead while zombies rose from their graves, and that a personal God will do stuff for them cause they believe, and non believers go to hell. These are crazy time thoughts that dumb down humans, and are unhealthy for society. The reason they have been able to get away with it for long is that society didn't scoff them.

Not let them "get away with it?" With what? Having their own ideas? Thinking for themselves?  These guys said I was such a lunatic for saying that atheism was a movement. they aer talking about eradicating belief (or is it the believers too?) and controlling what people are allowed to believe, but I was just peranoid think they have a movement!

Deist is so tired losing arguments he's ready to try to fascism to force people to see things his way. He's so sure he's right he thinks he has the right to suspend free thought, but when we are so sure we are right that makes us insane.

What's more inane is this guy calls himself "Deist" he claims to believe in God in some sense, but then he says supports "100%" making belief in God a definition of mentally ill.

I don't think there is any immediate danger. I don't think these guys could get a majority of people to follow them to a free breakfast. They aer a tiny minority it's much more likely that society is in danger from the religoius right lunatics who have the ear of the public and make up a sizable faction. In fact I wish we could lock that group in a room, see who comes out.Yet the Church should be aware of what these guys are doing. After all if they were so secrative about having a movement what is this guy not telling us about his plans?


This represents another stage in Atheists shutting down dialogue. They will create hostilities and close off the ability to have a dialogue and then blame theists for not being forthcoming or able to support their position. The best thing we can do now to counter this stuff is to keep dialogue going.

Are Athesits their Borther's Keeprs?

 



A Study supposedly shows that atheists are more motivated by compassion than are religious people. Atheists have used this in various ways to show that atheist can be moral, that relgion doesn't produce compassion and so on. The study is done by entitled "My Brother's Kepper: Compassion Predicts Generocity More Among Less Religious Individuals."[1] First published in Social Psychological and Personality Science, 00 (0) April (2012) 1-8. The Authors were Laura R. Saslow and Bob Willer, et al. It was published on line before print and can found in a pdf:

http://rifters.com/real/articles/MyBrothersKeeperCompassionPredictsGenerosityMoreAmongLessReligiousIndividuals.pdf

Abstract

Past research argues that religious commitments shape individuals’ prosocial sentiments, including their generosity and solidarity. But what drives the prosociality of less religious people? Three studies tested the hypothesis that, with fewer religious expec-

tations of prosociality, less religious individuals’ levels of compassion will play a larger role in their prosocial tendencies. In Study 1, religiosity moderated the relationship between trait compassion and prosocial behavior such that compassion was more critical to

the generosity of less religious people. In Study 2, a compassion induction increased generosity among less religious individuals but not among more religious individuals. In Study 3, state feelings of compassion predicted increased generosity across a variety of

economic tasks for less religious individuals but not among more religious individuals. These results suggest that the prosociality of less religious individuals is driven to a greater extent by levels of compassion than is the prosociality of the more religious.[2]

 They want to know if religion makes people more pro-social does it make them more compassionate? If not then can non reiloigious people be more compassionate. They use giving money to charity as the benchmark and thus decide that non religious are more compassinate not because they give more money but becuase tehy have fewer motivations to do in addition to compassion. So they see non religous motivation as stripped away compassion is what's left but religous people more more than one motivation. Let's look at the methodology and results.

Methodology

Across three studies, we compared the influence of compassion

on prosocial tendencies among more and less religious

individuals. In Study 1, we examined whether religiosity would

moderate the relationship of trait compassion on prosocial

behavior. We hypothesized that trait compassion would be

more critical to the generosity of the less religious than the

more religious. In Study 2, we tested whether a compassion

induction (vs. a neutral video) would increase generosity

among less religious individuals, but not among more religious

individuals. In Study 3, we assessed if momentary feelings of

compassion would predict increased generosity across a variety

of economic tasks for less religious individuals but not more

religious individuals. By measuring and manipulating compas-

sion, and measuring various forms of generous tendencies and

behavior, across three studies we test our hypothesis that

compassion is more integral to the generosity of the less

religious versus the more religious[3]

 They used a scale: Items include,

"I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me,When I see someone beingtaken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them, andOther people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a greatdeal" (reverse-scored). that' how they measure compassion.

Results

Study 1 yielded evidence in s

upport of our main hypothesis:

Religiosity moderated the relationship between compassion

and prosocial behavior such that the compassion-to-

prosociality link was stronger for less religious individuals than

it was for more religious individuals. Further, these results held

while controlling for gender, political orientation, and educa-

tional attainment—variables that might otherwise account for

our findings. In sum, these findings indicate that although com-

passion is associated with prosociality among both less reli-

gious and more religious individuals, this relationship

is particularlyrobust for less religious individ.[4]

That's the result for study 1 the others are similar.

Obviously there are definitional issues that need to be addressed. There is a methodological problem involving the nature of their definition of religion. how do they define religious? they say more religious are more conservative are they just saing religion = conservative thus not counting liberals as motivated?

Religiosity.

Participants indicated the strength of their

religious identity. The scale was recoded so that higher values

represent greater religiosity: 1 (no religion), 2 (not very strong religious identity), 3 (somewhat strongreligious identity), and 4(strong religious identity),M¼2.99,SD¼1.03. Single-item

measures of religiosity have been found to have sufficient

reliability and predictive validity in other work (Gorsuch &McFarland, 1972[5]

That's pretty shallow understanding of religious faith. That's going to be a problem for them. It's not just a matter of either you religious or you are not. There are levels of commitment. It's not too absurd or hard to to prove to assert that those are are more deeply convicted and who have had spiritual encounters would take the teachings more seriously and be willing to live by them. This has major import in two ways. First of all because it means that there's more involved than just feeling compassion and giving. Their major study says that non religious people have compassion as a motivator more so than religious people. That doesn't prove that religious people are less compassionate. It means that religious people might have three or four motives for giving and compassion might not be the main one (like doctrine or teaching might be more important). Non religious people will have mainly just that, compasion. This is the way the study has been understood by critics. "That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups."[6] One of the study co-author's says:

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."[7]

In other words it's not that the religious people are less compassionate but that they may not use compassion as the top of lexically ordered value system they go by.

The other reason knowing the depth of commitment matters is because "religious" covers a lot of ground. It includes people who don't feel the love and those who do. If you don't examine them in separate groups the averages will probably be dragged down by the less committed group. Like having bad students brings down the class average. There is a lot of evidence that those who experience the real spiritual side of their faiths are more giving and have more social consciousness than those who don't. Andrew Newberg says the kind of faith is what make the difference in terms of the result of faith upon the subject.

h+: In your new book, How God Changes Your Brain, you argue that religious fundamentalism can actually be good for you. How do you figure?
AN: It really depends on the nature of the belief. Fundamentalism, per se, isn’t bad or good. It all depends on the nature of one’s beliefs. We’ve found that if one’s beliefs are positive and loving and compassionate that can have a very profound effect on one’s health and happiness. But the opposite is true. If you believe in a punishing god, or if that fundamentalism preaches hate and anger — then the effects are going to be bad. Anxiety levels will go up, a stress response can occur, and like any stressor, if that continues for long enough, it’s going to impact health outcomes in a negative way. The real point is that what we believe has a very direct effect on the quality of our lives and we need to remember that.[8]

Two major studies of mystical experience found that those experienced the form of spirituality known as "mystical" or "peak" experience tended to have increased sense of social consciousness and became more giving. These studies are by Greely and Wuthnow.

Other positive consequences of religious experience include being less authoritarian and racist, less materialistic and status conscious, and showing more social concern and more self-assurance (Greeley 1975, Wuthnow 1978). In fact, it is in large part because of such consequences that scholars continue to acknowledge the importance of the experiential dimension of religion, even if not many study it.[9]

There are some studies that show religious people either have a high level of pro social behavior and/or generosity and compassion.John Lieff reports higher moral development among mystics.[10]
It's important to understand that just doing the two hours a week in chruch and hearing that we should love and be good to people is not enough to change one into a Mother Teresa. Those who have had actual spiritual encounter with the divine have been changed. They will always be the minority and so the average is drug down. There studies form scholarly sources that show not only giving and compassoin assocaited with religious belief but pro social behavior in general. Society for the Scientific Study of Religion finds:

An important discrepancy seems to exist between self-reports and laboratory studies regarding prosociality among religious people. Some have even suggested that this involves moral hypocrisy on the part of religious people. However, the assumption of the four studies reported here is that the impact of religiousness on prosociality is limited but exists, and does not reflect self-delusion. In Study 1 (N= 106), religious young adults tended not to use indirect aggression in dealing with hypothetical daily hassles. In Study 2 (N= 105), female students' religiosity was associated with willingness to help close targets in hypothetical situations but the effect was not extended to unknown targets. In Studies 3 (N= 315, 105 triads) and 4 (N= 274, 109 targets), religious targets not only reported high altruistic behavior and empathy, but were also perceived as such by peers (friends, siblings, or colleagues) in three out of four cases. Other results from the studies suggested that the prosociality of religious people is not an artifact of gender, social desirability bias, security in attachment, empathy, or honesty.[11]

One critique against the kind of study Saslow conduction with laboratory conditions is a study of  Israeli Jewish women Published by McGill University that seems to indicate the short comings of laboratory conditions. The study indicates that religious prompts have to be backed by real world ques that reinforce the religious training.

We may conclude based on the results that reports show higher charity and volunteering among the religious not because they are more altruistic, but rather because these individuals live in an environment that more often pressures them to give, in accordance with popular moral codes. As explained previously, worship rituals and holidays often contain cues to give money and time (Shapiro 1971; Bird 1982; Cascio 2003). Without exposure to customs designed in part to solicit donations, it is possible that the non-religious inclination to give often lies dormant.[12]

  Those findings might seem to be anti-religion as a force for giving, it must be pointed out the atheists would have the very same motive to exaggerate giving. They have social ques and a social movement (many tend to be politically liberal) that endorses compassion and giving. In those studies that involve self reporting there would be a motive to exaggerate one's on giving.


a study by Einlof in Sociology of Religion Quarterly consisting of life narrative interview from midlife in the United States "examine how religious values, ideas, and language motivate prosocial behaviors." This including giving and self Scarface and living up the teachings of Christ.

Using ratings from independent coders, statistically significant relationships were found between most of the themes and prosocial behaviors, particularly for respondents who engaged in multiple helping behaviors. In addition to documenting the relationship between religious ideas and values and helping behaviors, the study demonstrates how language mediates the relationship between the social and personal aspects of religion.[13]

Reader of this blog, Yonose, had a cogent criticism:

I saw the Brothers Keepers' study from the link. It is interesting nonetheless. If there's a positive correlation between compassion, empathy and prosocial behaviour, this would actually imply that, somehow, less religious people need to be fed of compassion more consecutively, to do any good deed with our human brethren, by applying constant sense data by stimuli and induction. All of the above seems to be correct. I don't see anything weird about that by now.As a consequence,This would also mean that less religious people are easier to be lied to with political propaganda e.g. like SOME extremist environmental alarmists.Where I believe the study is somehow flawed in context, is the linking of a positive correlation between prosocial behaviour and the making of good deeds per se as universal, because many people who love to be vocal about their lack of religiousness, just like to do good deeds in a preferential way: most probably they will help non-religious people only. Such behaviours have been demonstrated by themselves over and over.It is just overly simplistic to have a positive correlation with compassion, by induction, lack of religiosity, and then conflating such, with the actual making of good deeds to people. There is not a single trace in that study that confirms which types of people they had helped, whether religious or not.

This would also imply that the idea of correlating actual charity with lack of religiousness is not a universal statement, and that it is completely falsifiable, and in consequence, it is not possible to make a proof that "Atheists have more compassion than religious people".That's where I agree that there's a double standard with these types of Atheists.This is just reduced to a mere political game. Have these types of Atheists forgot about their intellectual roots??

These high integration states were also correlated with peak experiences including inner calm, maximum wakefulness, alertness, lack of fear, effortlessness, a sense of perfection, and a sense of being “high.” In an unusual finding these people also had higher moral development, better self-image, better sleep and a better reputation. - See more at: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extraordinary-mental-states-5-spiritual-and-religious-experiences#sthash.tr6LYxOk.dpuf

These high integration states were also correlated with peak experiences including inner calm, maximum wakefulness, alertness, lack of fear, effortlessness, a sense of perfection, and a sense of being “high.” In an unusual finding these people also had higher moral development, better self-image, better sleep and a better reputation. - See more at: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extraordinary-mental-states-5-spiritual-and-religious-experiences#sthash.tr6LYxOk.dpuf

I agree.

These high integration states were also correlated with peak experiences including inner calm, maximum wakefulness, alertness, lack of fear, effortlessness, a sense of perfection, and a sense of being “high.” In an unusual finding these people also had higher moral development, better self-image, better sleep and a better reputation. - See more at: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extraordinary-mental-states-5-spiritual-and-religious-experiences#sthash.tr6LYxOk.dpuf

soruces

These high integration states were also correlated with peak experiences including inner calm, maximum wakefulness, alertness, lack of fear, effortlessness, a sense of perfection, and a sense of being “high.” In an unusual finding these people also had higher moral development, better self-image, better sleep and a better reputation. - See more at: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extraordinary-mental-states-5-spiritual-and-religious-experiences#sthash.tr6LYxOk.dpuf

These high integration states were also correlated with peak experiences including inner calm, maximum wakefulness, alertness, lack of fear, effortlessness, a sense of perfection, and a sense of being “high.” In an unusual finding these people also had higher moral development, better self-image, better sleep and a better reputation. - See more at: http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extraordinary-mental-states-5-spiritual-and-religious-experiences#sthash.tr6LYxOk.dpu

[1] Laura R. Saslow, Robb Willer, Mathrew Feinberg, Paul K Piff, Katharine Clark, Cacher Kelntner, and Srina R. Saturn."My Brother's Kepper: Compassion Predicts Generocity More Among Less Religious Individuals."Social Psychological and Personality Science (April 26, 2012) 1948550612444137
pdf: http://rifters.com/real/articles/MyBrothersKeeperCompassionPredictsGenerosityMoreAmongLessReligiousIndividuals.pdf
accessed 11/12/13

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Staff Writer, "Atheists More Motivated by Compassion Than the Faithful," Live Science. (May 1, 2012) online ressource
http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html
accessed 11/12/13

[7] Ibid.

[8] Andrew Newberg quoted by Steve Kotler, "the Neurology of Spiritual Experience" h* sept. 2009
http://hplusmagazine.com/2009/09/16/neurology-spiritual-experience/
accessed 11/12/13

[9] Encyclopedia of Religion and Society, William H. Swatos, Jr. editor
http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/exp.htm
accessed 11/12/13

[10] John Lieff, Searching for the Mind,Online resource.
 http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/extraordinary-mental-states-5-spiritual-and-religious-experiences
accessed 11/12/13.

[11] Vassilis Saroglou, Isabelle Pichon, et al. "Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings" Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Volume 44, Issue 3, , (September 2005), 323–348.

 Article first published online: 25 AUG 2005,DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x

pdf: http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/doc/psyreli/documents/2005.JSSR.pdf

[12] Salomon Israel and Maoz Brown, "Faith, Fellowship, and Philanthropy: Giving Rates as a Function of Religiosity among Israeli Jewish Women," McGill Sociological Review, Volume 3, February 2013, pp. 36-54.
On line versoin posted by McGill University: http://www.mcgill.ca/msr/volume3/article3

accessed 11/13/13.

[13]  Christopher J. Einolf. "The Link Between Religion and Helping Others: the Role of Values, Ideals, and Language." Sociology of Religion Quarterly Review  (2011) doi: 10.1093/socrel/srr017
first published online April 6, 2011. 

Atheist Double Standard on Evidence: Knee Jerk Reaction, or just Jerk Reaction?

 


 Caveat: do not assume this means I think we should
trash the Koran or any book sacred to a people. I'm
saying the Atheist want to trash the Bible but not
other sacred books. That's a double standard.

On CARM 11/10/13



This is about a bright idea I had to point out the discrepancy between the way atheists responded to the M scale studies of mystical experience vs a study an atheist put forward that uses a similar methodology. The M scale is a method for determining the validity of a particular experience as to it's mystical nature. It does this by comparing it to a standard validated theory by W.T. Stace. Mysticism scale is a series of 32 questions designed to determine if one's experiences are like those described by Stace. One can read more about it here.

I do not argue that the M scale proves the existence of God. I never have said that. I have said that it's findings can be extrapolated to make an argument about the warrant for belief.

read this becuase I will show that Royce's studies (at least one) has the very same flaw for which atheists condemn the M scale.

Many times atheists on this board refer to the M scale (mysticism scale method for understanding if one has had a valid mystical experience in relation to W.T. Stace's theory). They have slandered it and called it names and said it's stupid it's horible pice junck ect ect.

One of the major basis for this reaction is the fact that the M scale is a scale (duh) (not knowing what that means in sociology) they didn't realize a scale is a range of answers given to survey. So they find it's a survey they go ape. "they could be lying." So they assume all the responded to Hood's studies lie about their experiences of God's presence and stuff. that accounts for all the right answers and stuff that just happens to validate Stace's theory. this mass of people in six different countries just happen to lie at the time in the same way and it validates this theory they have never read.

Now in present time


Royce throws a study at me.

Saslow, brothers keeper,

says atheists have more compassion than religious people.



It uses a rating scale and questions. just as does the M scale. It asks them questions about their feelings and attitudes they could clearly be lying.

Participants and procedure.
We analyzed participants from the
2004 General Social Survey, which is a nationally representa-tive sample of noninstitutionalized adults in the United Statesover the age of 18 (Davis & Smith, 2005; 624 men, 713...

mark that "survey" because atheists have surveys are worthless. yes in relation to the M scale they said more than one said it, big thinker said it, I think Diest said it (sorry if I'm wrong about that) that survey's are always unreliable and can be lied on.

Methodology for study 1

"Compassion.
As compassion, sympathy, and empathic
concern are typically considered highly interrelated (Batson,
2009), we measured the tendency to feel compassion with the
7-item empathic concern subscale of the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index (rated from 1,
does not describe very well,to 5,describes very well;a¼.72;M¼4.43,SD¼.67; Davis,
1983). Items include,I often have tender, concerned feelings
for people less fortunate than me,When I see someone being
taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them, and
Other people’s misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great
deal..."

same deal. they asking them their experiences and feelings they could be lying!


I want to see you guys say Royces study is garbage. I want to you see mock and ridicule that one the same as you do the m scale. the methodologies are much alike.

hey they have a motive to lie because it makes atheism look bad if they don't have compassion.

 So in other words it's a study that uses a similar methodology to the M scale. It uses the very methods that the M scale has been berated by those atheists for: a survey is bad because they could lie. So when they survey finds for atheism (they are compassionate more so than religious peopel) that's ok. When it's finding agaisnt them (religious experience is transformation and could be used as a reason for belief in God) they hate the very same methods.


 If atheists are so brilliant, scientific, rational, they use reason to evaluate and analyze data and arrive at reasoned conclusions bravely and honestly  through their intellects, what do you think they are going to do with this?


Whateverman:

First, we'd have to see Royce claiming that his study proves God does or does not exist.

If you think that doesn't mean they will automaticaly reject any evidence for God withouit cocenr for it's truth content guess again.


Originally Posted by Metacrock

what does that have to do with it? (what does what it says about God have to do with the methodology being good or not)

 whateverman

Try reading what I've actually written.

Meta:

hu?


Originally Posted by Metacrock

what you wrote is nonsense, it proves my point about the double standard. I reflected totally accurately.

Whateverman

This is why people ignore you here, Metacrock.

You've not considered anything people have written in this thread, and you've rarely done so elsewhere. If you're so unwilling to listen to what people are saying, raging against atheists for them not listening to you is childish (at best).

Meta:

what's he talking about? He just said didn't he? that it depends upon weather or not it's about God. I'm just taking him at his word.


Maybrick

Its weird.

I cannot see where in the quote provided they appealed to magic, gods and indefinables.

It is almost like the study is studying actual effects.

I would also go out on a limb and suggest the study authors haven't left out whole subgroups that might have messed up their figures.

That is just a guess, but usually Royce seems a lot more thorough than yourself in picking sources.

If you cannot see the differences in concept between "compassion, sympathy, and empathic concern" which are quantifiable things and "ooooh...I felt the touch of god, and just look at the trees!" then the problems are on your end.

Meta:

That still means that they are rejecting not becuase of the method but becuase they don't like the findings. It's hte conclusion they reject but since they have no basis for contradicting the method, they accept it when it's in their favor, then they have no basis for questioning the findings. These are teh big intellecutally suprorr atheists that base their ideas on reason? hu?

Tralala (Trollala)

You used the M scale studies as evidence that god must exist, which is a ridiculous position.

Royce was not saying god does not exist because of the studies he produced..


Metacrock, could you PLEASE be more honest with your arguments.

Meta

this guy is really a brain dead reactionary. everything he says in that quote there si wrong and is demonstrably wrong.


(1) I do not argue God "must exist." I say that the experiences offer a warrant for belief, that is they offer a good reason to believe. I specifically deny proof of God's existence on the basis that he's not subject to empirical proof becuase he's not given in sense data.

(2) I said nothing about Royce's view on God I said the methodology of the study he threw at me was quite similar to the M scale. so much so that it casts a poll on their rejection of the M scale. This is just proves they don't read the posts.

(3) Be more honest. I show a study that they used agaisnt me that has a similar methodology to the M scale they turn around and show their slander of the M scale is base upon not accepting it's data, which is scientific data produced by the methodology they otherwise except. That proves it's not the truth they care about but want they want to be the truth.


whateverman decides to come back and try it again. I guess he feels shamed by my insistance that he think fairly.

Whateverman

You really can't read for comprehension, can you...

I did not say or imply what you did. I implied that a study involving the subjective opinions of people (who may have lied or not) might be useful, but it's not evidence for the existence of God. Royce linked to a study, but people didn't jump all over him because he didn't claim the study's results said anything about the existence or non-existence of gods.

Seriously, grow up.

O wow a "grow up" even! That's such an adult post he didn't claim teh studies result in the existence of Gdo so that's why it's a good study. the one I use that uses the same methodology has findings that one could use to make God arguments so it's bad. The findings have to be pre detemriend to weed out conclusions we don't like that's what he calls "growing up."

Is it scientific to pre determine what your findings can be?

atheist "star" tips hand: Proof of Orwellian Thinking in Atheism

Arguing on carm with the poster I call "the genius of the ages," "Royce" (also daubed "Trolls Royce"). He actually argues that we can't back an idea or propse one of our own making, it has to have permission form official sources of knowledge. If we propose an idea without official permission it's some kind of fallacy of logic.

The issue is moral realism. I've aruged that the only valid moral realism (objectively true morality) is if it is backed by God. He argues that no official source of academic knowledge accetps that so it's a fallacy. i just "made it up."

Originally Posted by Royce

There is no peer-reviewed definition of "moral realism", or any definition from a real source that I know of (including Wikipedia) that says one needs to belief in God to be a moral realist. This includes the definition you gave from Wikipedia.

So you just made up the false claim that only belief God makes one a moral realist.

This is what I mean by "fabricate":

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fabricate

to make up something that is not true

Since you just made up a claim that is not true, guess what you just did?

Meta:
that is so ridiculous. do ever think for yourself? you are just saying "I can't believe something unless an official group says it's ok to." this is proof positive that atheism is mind control.

you are trying to fit the mold of a thinking intellectual you can't even understand the concept of formulating your own idea with your own arguments without some "peer review" telling you what to think. ( you are not a peer of professors. no you are not. you are not my peer).

that's silly, it's silly.

the real kicker is you say I made it up and it's a false bleief! why is it false?Because I made it up and makes it false. It's not a deduced argument based upon reason it's "made up" as though thinking for yourself is a logical fallacy?

Orwellian atheism you don't dare think of soemthing the handlers didn't tell you to think.You are absolutely forbidden to come up with your own ideas!

to try to tag my attempts and interdependent though as "false" and some kind of fabrication like there's soemthing wrong with doing it just puerile.


That's the implication but what's going on closer to the surface is he's changed the meaning of what I said to the idea taht "you can't be a moral realist without god." I never any such thing. I said it's not grounded without God. It's not going to work as a valid moral position without God I didn't say you can't be a moral realist without God.

Is Athiesm the "Reality" base Community? Following the Flow of Atheis Propaganda and Rhetoric

 

I began noticing the atheist use of "reality" a couple of years ago. It began with the observation about the fortress of facts. That's the atheist manipulation tactic of trying to assert that all facts are on their side and science gives them a great mountain of facts and that therefore we have no facts on the believing side. Then they got sites like "God is imaginary" making arguments to the effect hat "if you can't see it then it can't be real." I saw an argument like on CARM just the other day.

 Now I see they have started referring t themselves as "the reality based community." The radical blog "Atheist Revolution" writes that they should not trust Huff post, of all thing, which is nothing but shameless propaganda for atheism. But they must represent the other faction in atheism plus split becuase these guys dont'  like them. Notice their use of  "reality based community."

What I would like to convince you of today is that not all of these media sources are equally valuable and that one should be actively avoided. In particular, I'd like to persuade you that no member of the reality-based community should promote The Huffington Post (HuffPo) by sharing links to it on websites, blogs, or social media. The next time you are tempted to tweet a link to HuffPo, I hope you'll think twice.

I first wrote about this in July of 2010, noting that HuffPo is no friend to the reality-based community. Of course, I was not writing anything new. This problem had been known for some time, especially among science bloggers. What I sought to do was spread the word among atheists as much as I could. I explained that HuffPo is notorious for promoting woo, pseudoscience, and assorted quackery. I joined PZ Myers (Pharyngula) in calling on the reality-based community to stop promoting them. A few months later, I followed up with another post providing additional evidence of why HuffPo is so bad for the reality-based community.[link]

Read more: http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/01/before-you-link-to-huffington-post.html#ixzz2jgJELygX

 Incredibly silly thing to say given that Huff post cranks out shameless atheist propaganda everyday. Be that as it may he uses that phrase 'reality based community" twice, once in each paragraph. he uses it all down the page too. Chrsitians don't have reality. Chrsitians are all about making stuff up. we just spend all our time in fantasy land. This is another case of how atheist wont let you be honest. you have to accept their view of reality or not your cooking in all burners. Of course their view means covering up aspects of the reality that speak of God or that experiences of God must alway always be denied.

How's this for reality? I have 200 empirical studies in peer reviewed academic journals, done by psychologists, which show that religious experience makes your life dramatically better,it's really good for you, religious experience people are less likely to have mental illness than are atheists or unbelievers, are less depressed and better able to cope with life. For five years atheists on carm have refused to read a single study though I talk about them incessantly. They don't have to read one they just know they are no good. They argued that the respondents in the studies could be lying about thier experiences. I challenged to lie their way to validating a source (Hunderhill's mysticism) having not read it just based upon what they think mystics would say. Not one of them was able to lie his way to validating because anytime you had any factor you make the probability of guessing the answer that much less probable. There are 32 factors to answer on the M scale so that's 32 chances where they have to guess rightly. But these reality experts can't see how stupid it is to think that pesants from Iran who don't read English could lie their way to validating W.T. Stace's philosophical work about mysticism. That's some grasp on reality these people have.

How about the study that I talked about last week where the guy supposedly proved that religious thinking is magical thinking? Turns out that to get there he had to use four bait and switches, such as asserting with no proof that religious thinning is based upon intuitive thinking. The study they based their findings upon was done fora different purpose so he was extrapolating from a data base that didn't apply, and I opposed it with a mountain of other research showing that intuitive thinking works well in many venues.

Never mind that stuff, that's just the details. We are into reality where we just assert there's no God with no reason or justification then mock and ridicule everything that fails to back up that premise. That's reality in their minds.

 Why is Huff post so bad? let's count the reasons. First he gives a link to a page that nothing to do with it. http://www.redstateprogressive.com/

Red state progressive Political energy and policy to think about the mitigating conditions, the defendant is not charged, the Red state progressive Political energy and policy regretted his actions, and guaranteed to not repeat them. According to this decision, the Red state progressive Political energy and policy immediately recognized after consultation with a Red state progressive Political energy and policy.

 you see anything about Huff post there? The link was in this sentence:As good as their political content is, HuffPo is notorious for promoting quackery. got me. that's some grasp on reality.

they link to a blog called "Doug's world" with the adult sounding article "Huff post has too much woo." When I was a kid we used the word "woo" to means so what? as in "big woo!" "mom said for you come in now!" "O big woo." Now I guess it means "stuff I don't like." so here Doug's World links to a blog on Huff that talks about the Eugenics movement of the 30s, how sterilization was big in both Germany and America. Becuase Darwin is mixed in then they don't have grasp on reality. Of cousre one has to wonder what grasp on reality Atheist revo or Doug have when they demand that we take Darwin out and don't sully good old Chuck because he's sacred he discovered evolution. Don't dare criticize that, that's not reality. Get it?It's more Orwellian atheist speak. We say "reality" we mean "the reality we want not the one there is."

I am a Darwinian. I'm not advocating throwing mud at Darwin, I think Darwin's scinece is preserve the reality that it was misused at some point. Trying to cover that up is not reality it's manipulating reality. Atheist revo links to a blog called William K. Wolfrum Chronicles. "After having read Newsweek’s recent article on The Huffington Post, I saw how Arianna Huffington has turned her vision into a $30-million-a-year site that is now turning a profit. But what I didn’t see in the article were the three main strategies that made The Huffington Post the powerhouse it is today: Sexism, hyperbole and woo. what we see is  a bunch of ads of the kind we would find in Cosmopolitan. So becasue Huffinton has done commercial and figured out how to turn a blog into big business these guys have decided that it's not good for their "we want to reality to be the way we fantasize about it" community.

Hey it doesn't hurt me if they want to dump Huff. They are trying cut off one of their most important propaganda arms to be ideological purists that's ok with me. What I find amazing is their manipulation of realty under the guise of demanding that they are the reality community. For example their claim that Huff is catering to medical charlatans and frauds by not lambasting issues like vaccines causing autism. Believe I'm not defending Huff. But what they are really saying is if you explore an idea that they don't agree with them your catering to frauds. There is only one version of reality that's theirs and you dare not question it.  In calling themselves "reality based community" what they are saying is "truth regime." This is our truth regime, that's a term coined in postmodernism meaning they are manipulating reality. They are big-brother. they are big brother wanna bes.

 Looking further for the phrase we find on Wikipedia

Reality-based community is an informal term in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community" was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than on faith, assumption, or ideology. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.
The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove^[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."^[2]

 2^ Suskind, Ron (2004-10-17). "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush". The New York Times Magazine. ISSN 0028-7822. Retrieved 2007-05-22.

 Based upon observation and not on faith I wonder what community uses that line? "Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing." But it's not an ideology. It just calls it's a "reality based community" and manipulates language to label things that they don't support as "not reality" and things they believe in as 'reality" but it's not an ideology.

The phrase has more of a political tone to it and a politics with which I agree. There's an excellent political blog with that name. We must be careful not to assume that anyone using that phrase is only referring to atheist ideology and to a larger fact based political outlook. At the same time it's obvious certain aspects of the atheist movement adopted it as well.

Clear example of how atheists twist scripture

 


Atheists on carm really need Christians to believe that we are still under the OT because that's where most of their attack on the Bible is most successful. they know it and they fight tooth and nail to maintain the heretical view that the OT is still in vogue. One such atheist who relies on that strategy a lot is "Deist." Often featured here. Confronted with passages saying the Old Covenant is nailed to the cross and argument that God never told Israel to murder people who thought differently then them he argued that God does command this. Look how he twists the scripture.



Originally Posted by ignatius

Cite from the bible where it says Christians should stone non-believers. You obviously have no evidence for your other asinine comment maybe you'll have some for this one.

You know, I am surprised at the ignorance of the bible displayed by Christians here. It takes non believers to point you to the truth

Deist:

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18

 Meta:
That's excusable since a lot people don't know the real word in Hebrew means  "one who poisons."

But he goes on to twist scriptuer badly.



Deist:

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Meta:


that's not what it says.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

⁶ If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, ⁷ gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), ⁸ do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. ⁹ You must certainly put them to death.

 You might say that's still absurd. Yes it is by modern standards, in those days infants were sacrificed to pagan gods. this passage doesn't say just kill anyone who disagrees with you it doesn't say kill anyone who worships other gods. it's talking about actively leading the People of Israel away form the true God. The result of that will be infants will be killed.

Deist:

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Deist:

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Meta:




these are absolutely his paraphrases and they are not waht the Bible says. he's wildly twisting the meaning to support his view. The way Deist paraphrases it someone who is a devout Hebrew oculd be killed for a minor disagreemen that is within a framework of bleief. It doesnt' say anything like that. Here's what it says:

Deuteronomy 17:2-7

² If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, ³ and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, ⁴ and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel...,(then it's "coutins")

 It doesn't say anything like kill anyone who disagrees with you. Again it's speaking of actively working to subvert belief in God.  I can see why the CARM atheists wouldn't like that. I really can. Let's remember the ramifications are a lot more serous than just burning incenses and sleeping with a temple prostitute. You could wind up killing you kid as ritual sacrifice. The real issue is they are actively working to destroy Israel. The reason to Keep Israel intact is so the world can be saved through Jesus.


Deist:
Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13


Meta:
Have we gotten the pattern down now? what do you think it really says? 


Deuteronomy 17:12-13

¹² Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. ¹³ All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again.

Pretty Draconian measure for contempt of court. A lot of lawyers wouldn't like that. It say so much more than just Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. for one thing we are talking about a judge in court not just a priest in chruch.









 Deist:

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

 Meta:

 Deuteronomy 18:20

 ²⁰ But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

 Now unreasonable is that really? It doesn't just kill false prophets it says if they lead people in the name of other gods or if they speak things no commanded. Considering that prophets were one of the biggest sources of power who held real sway over what the people did, that made their honesty and veracity pretty important. It's not just being mean or arbitrary, the life of the nation rested in their hands.

this nex one shows his total dishonesty

 Deist:

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Meta
 Mark 6:11

And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."

 As you can see it says nothing of the kind. It doesn't' say anything bad will happen. It only says make a testimony against them. I says nothing about the consequences of it. He's asserted something with no proof. the King James has the bit about Somom and Gamorrah but its' not in the NIV because it's not in the MS used by Wescott and Hort. That's another point. The best pile of  MS the modern modern don't reflect that part of it.


Deist

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Meta
That is a reference to Exodus to the Egyptians who were pursuing the Israelite to take them back to slavery and perhaps kill many of them if not most. Obviously more justifiable than just saying "God's goign to do anyone anyone who disagrees with you." this is hows us how totally dishonest they aer and now they will twist the meaning of anything to defame the Bible and Christianity.





Then he tires to take on the idea of the new covenant repainting the oc. He has a motive to opposes it because if that's true he loses his major argument agaisnt Christianity. So of course he mocks and ridicules it. Calling it names proves it's no good.

 Deist

Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)

He uses the version that is without the phrase "until the fulfillment." So the fulfillment we all know was When Christ died on the cross. the passage does not say that the Old Convent Mosaic law will be in until heaven and earth pass away. It ways until it's fulfilled, which it was. The reference to heaven and earth means it is as enduring as heaven and earth but that doesnt' mean it's fulillment wont come soon.

here's NIV that does say it will be fufilled:

Matthew 5:17-18
¹⁷ “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

In every case he uses the JKV so it will more strict and wont include the breaks. That may not be his fault but it seems he didn't go to any trouble to learn how study.


 Here's a Passage where Paul says the old Covenant is done away.
 Colossians 2:13-14, in which Paul states,

"And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross".

 Here's a pretty decent study that shows a great many passages saying its' done away and good explanation of how they prove it. This is by a Church of God pastor.

 http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?166459-Do-atheists-have-sincere-feelings&p=4914037#post4914037