Atheists Show thier lack of honor and dencey AGAIN!!!!

Dr,Ralph Hood jr

For weeks now on CARM the anti-intellectual faction (who argued against university having liberal arts) have been Trying to defuse the thunder in my 200 studies by demanding that I put one up on the board. Of cousre I can't do that because it would require typing a hundred pages in a text box. I offered to summarize one and the of course claimed that I was afraid to show it to them. I put up links of the studies begin talked about in articles and in a text book by the inverter of the M scale. That wasn't good enough they refused to even click on the link. I made the whole bibliography available to them. They refused to ever look up a single study.

I linked to various studies but they were all on Pub med or some other academic service that requires a subscription. They continued to taunt and tease for weeks "he refuses to put up a study so therefore he's lying they are no good blah blah blah." Finally I began to tease and taunt back. I said I would fly to the home of one of them and stay for 2 weeks and we read all the studies together every night until we read all 200 of them. Of cousre this guy wasn't about to do that. I offered to mail him a study and he wouldn't give me his address.

finally the one who started that strategy came down off his high horse and said I could summarize a study. I put up three summaries form my book. Immediately one of them gave tis response.

Wow, Meta, you're talking about this guy?:

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/Show...=241785&page=1

Frankly, reading the study, reading about his methodology and what the study claims to do it is obvious that this is one of those studies you do because you are mildly interested in it, and a few students are willing to do the leg work.

It's not followed up by anything, and my biggest criticism is core the the study: it doesn't say anything. It's meaningless.

I conducted a similar study when I was in Graduate School, asking about how people perceived certain buildings and tried to create a methodology that would somehow standardize he experience of one building vs. another. All very subjective, but you try to nail some certain things down. In the end, I got lots of data and wrote a great paper on what it was supposed to have shown. I included where it failed.

In the end, it's just not a useful tool. People are similiar, so they have similar experiences and similar language from certain things. Some people are able to code-shift which makes them much more able to assume what the study is trying to discover even if they don't know the specific lingo.

All in all, lets face it, this is sociology. WTH. It's an art degree with graphs.



Let's put it into context. You are trying to test whether a generation or two of people use similar language to express the ineffable; the unknown.

Meanwhile, http://www.historyofscience.com/G2I/...p?era=-2500000

When you view the human race (and predecessors as I do), as an animal with an exceptional brain but is fascinated with "the other", you realize that the unknown is a fascination for us, but it doesn't mean you get to make things up about it.

There are things we don't know, and just about everyone has heard the religio-speak to try to describe it. It's fascinating to people who like human psychology and sociology, but it hardly answers any questions.

As if Meta has discovered the truth after a million years of people making things up... Meta, THEY WERE MAKING IT UP!! You are trying to graph it and take it seriously! You are trying to say, "sure they believed gods created lighning, but what are the unlying themes? Those are the truths of our existence!"

No, they are the underlying themes YOU make up.

You're like a music critic listening to "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and thinking you need to analyze every word and syllable. Then, when John says, "no, it was about Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" you say, "oh, you just don't have the education I have! You don't know what you are talking about! It's so subconscious, it's Supernature!"

Give it up. What you are doing is stupid.

That's his highly intellectual answer to the summary of three studies. I knew they would do this. I knew as soon as I put up any kind fo study they would mock and ridicule it with no serious attempted to undersatnd it. Look at how stupidly he calims he did a study on a par wtih this guy Ralph Hood who has published 118 studies and is the major researcher in his field!

 The dumb ass thinks they are on a par because they were both surveys. That's like me saying "I've done some math on a par with Hawking." He talks about imaginary number doesn't he? that's the kind I use on all my math tests.

The link above that he uses as his big test of Hood's veracity is a "rat your teacher" page on the net where sophomores talk about "I like him becuase he's nice." That's supposed to prove he's no good?

check out Hood's Vita

This is typical of what I knew they would do. As soon as I put up a summary they start the mocking and ridiculing without even seriously  considering the material. That's exactly what they did with the Lourdes evdience. When I supplied it it wasn't' good enough. It never is.

this just underscores how atheism is morally and philosophically bankrupt, as a movement it's degenerating into brown shirt tactics.

Tonight I watched a thing about the cultural revolution in china. It interviewed former Red Guards who said that  they beat people so much they got addicted to it and couldn't stop. It made them feel important and special and good about themselves to beat people. that's just what's going on with theses atheists. it makes them feel special to mock and ridicule Christians.

Religous Experience Empirically Validated as vital and positive

 Rex, one of our loyal opponents on this blog made the statement response to Kristen:

So is your glass filled with invisible pink unicorns too? They don't exist, so sadly, I don't have room for them in my glass.Do you? There is a quote that I have seen often, I think it applies here: I can appreciate the beauty of a garden without having to believe that there are fairies living beneath it.

My glass is full of reality, and it has no room for superstition.

Unfortunately atheists usually think through the cowardly mind I mentioned before. Their big talk of being strong and facing reality is high selective and all of it is calculated to  while in the dark. Their facts are high selective their er zots "scientific view point" is  a fraud, circular reasoning designed to screen out anything that doesn't fit the template of their brain washing.

The cirular reasoning works like this:

Materialism says there can't be anything beyond the materail realm so there cannot be proof of the supernatural.

How do we know this? because there is no proof of the supernatural.

What about claims of proof such as Lourdes? they can't be true because there is no proof of the supernatural.

With that kind of thinking all counter arguments are also ignored. But there are a wealth of counter arguments. The studies demonstrate overwhelmingly (200 of them) that religious belief and experience help your life and make you better, and the atheist is the sick soul who sees pessimistically and more likely to be in depression, in therapy or mentally ill.

1)Religious experince is not corrollated to mental illness

It is amazing how many atheists think that any sort of religious feeling is a prelude to schitzephrinia, delusions, and other mental pathologies. But the studies show there is no corrollation at all. Now there are cases where mental illness has conicided with religous thoughts, or where delusions took the form of voices in the head claiming to be God and so on, but even in these cases theree is no corrollation between the patients past history of religious belief and delustions. It just happens that at certain times mentally ill people have delusions that involve religious ideas, but it does not follow that religious thinking is a product of mental illness

a) Religious ideas and practice not corrollated with pathology

J. Gartner, D.B. Allen, The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3090

"As for psychosis, the authors notied that those with psychotic ideation are not necessarily preoccupied with religious concerns, nor do they frequently attend religious services; rather they are less frequent attenders than those in the general population..."

b) No corrollation between mystical experince and mental illness.

Childhood Transpersonal Childhood Experiences of Higher States of Consciousness: Literature Review and Theoretical Integration

Caird
(1987) "found no relationship between reported mystical experience and neuroticism, psychoticism and lying while Spanos and Moretti (1988) found no relationship between a measure of mystical experience and psychopathology."
Quote:

The experience of pure consciousness is typically called "mystical". The essence of the mystical experience has been debated for years (Horne, 1982). It is often held that "mysticism is a manifestation of something which is at the root of all religions (p. 16; Happold, 1963)." The empirical assessment of the mystical experience in psychology has occurred to a limited extent. Scientific interest in the mystical experience was broadened with the research on psychoactive drugs. The popular belief was that such drugs mimicked either mystical states and/or schizophrenic ones (reviewed in Lukoff, Zanger & Lu, 1990). Although there is likely some physiological similarity as well as phenomenological recent work has shown clear differences. For instance, Oxman, Rosenberg, Schnurr, Tucker and Gala (1988) analyzed 66 autobiographical accounts of schizophrenia, hallucinogenic drug experiences, and mystical ecstasy as well as 28 control accounts of important personal experiences. They concluded that the:

"subjective experiences of schizophrenia, hallucinogenic drug-induced states, and mystical ecstasy are more different from one another than alike."(p. 401).

2) Religioius belief indicative of good mental health

a)Religous Pepole are More Self Actualized

Dr. Michale Nielson,Ph.D. Psychology and religion.
"http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/ukraine/index.htm"

Quote:

"What makes someone psychologically healthy? This was the question that guided Maslow's work. He saw too much emphasis in psychology on negative behavior and thought, and wanted to supplant it with a psychology of mental health. To this end, he developed a hierarchy of needs, ranging from lower level physiological needs, through love and belonging, to self- actualization. Self-actualized people are those who have reached their potential for self-development. Maslow claimed that mystics are more likely to be self-actualized than are other people. Mystics also are more likely to have had "peak experiences," experiences in which the person feels a sense of ecstasy and oneness with the universe. Although his hierarchy of needs sounds appealing, researchers have had difficulty finding support for his theory."
Gagenback

Quote:

In terms of psychological correlates, well-being and happiness has been associated with mystical experiences,(Mathes, Zevon, Roter, Joerger, 1982; Hay & Morisy, 1978; Greeley, 1975; Alexander, Boyer, & Alexander, 1987) as well as self-actualization (Hood, 1977; Alexander, 1992). Regarding the latter, the developer of self-actualization believed that even one spontaneous peak or transcendental experience could promote self-actualization. Correlational research has supported this relationship. In a recent statistical meta-analysis of causal designs with Transcendental Meditation (TM) controlling for length of treatment and strength of study design, it was found that: TM enhances self-actualization on standard inventories significantly more than recent clinically devised relaxation/meditation procedures not explicitly directed toward transcendence [mystical experience] (p. 1; Alexander, 1992)

b) Christian Repentence Promotes Healthy Mindedness

william James
Gilford lectures

Quote:

"Within the Christian body, for which repentance of sins has from the beginning been the critical religious act, healthy-mindedness has always come forward with its milder interpretation. Repentance according to such healthy-minded Christians means getting away from the sin, not groaning and writhing over its commission. The Catholic practice of confession and absolution is in one of its aspects little more than a systematic method of keeping healthy-mindedness on top. By it a man's accounts with evil are periodically squared and audited, so that he may start the clean page with no old debts inscribed. Any Catholicwill tell us how clean and fresh and free he feels after the purging operation. Martin Luther by no means belonged to the healthy-minded type in the radical sense in which we have discussed it, and be repudiated priestly absolution for sin. Yet in this matter of repentance he had some very healthy-minded ideas, due in the main to the largeness of his conception of God. -..."

e. Recent Empirical Studies Prove Religious Believers have less depression, mental illness lower Divorce rate, ect.

J. Gartner, D.B. Allen, The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3090

Quote:

"The Reviews identified 10 areas of clinical staus in whihc research has demonstrated benefits of religious commitment: (1) Depression, (2) Suicide, (3) Delinquency, (4) Mortality, (5) Alchohol use (6) Drug use, (7) Well-being, (8) Divorce and martital satisfaction, (9) Physical Health Status, and (10) Mental health outcome studies....The authors underscored the need for additional longitudinal studies featuring health outcomes. Although there were few, such studies tended to show mental health benefit. Similarly, in the case of teh few longevity or mortality outcome studies, the benefit was in favor of those who attended chruch...at least 70% of the time, increased religious commitment was associated with improved coping and protection from problems."

[The authors conducted a literature search of over 2000 publications to glean the current state of empirical study data in areas of Spirituality and health]

2) Shrinks assume religious experience Normative.

Dr. Jorge W.F. Amaro, Ph.D., Head psychology dept. Sao Paulo

[ http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/amaro.html]

a) Unbeliever is the Sick Soul

"A non spiritualized person is a sick person, even if she doesn't show any symptom described by traditional medicine. The supernatural and the sacredness result from an elaboration on the function of omnipotence by the mind and can be found both in atheist and religious people. It is an existential function in humankind and the uses each one makes of it will be the measure for one's understanding."

b. psychotheraputic discipline re-evalutes Frued's criticism of religion

Quote:

Amaro--

"Nowadays there are many who do not agree with the notion that religious behavior a priori implies a neurotic state to be decoded and eliminated by analysis (exorcism). That reductionism based on the first works by Freud is currently under review. The psychotherapist should be limited to observing the uses their clients make of the representations of the image of God in their subjective world, that is, the uses of the function of omnipotence. Among the several authors that subscribe to this position are Odilon de Mello Franco (12), .... W. R. Bion (2), one of the most notable contemporary psychoanalysts, ..."

[sources sited by Amaro BION, W. R. Atenção e interpretação (Attention and interpretation). Rio de Janeiro: Imago, 1973.

MELLO FRANCO, O. de. Religious experience and psychoanalysis: from man-as-god to man-with-god. Int. J. of Psychoanalysis (1998) 79,]

c) This relationship is so strong it led to the creation of a whole discipline in psychology; transactionalism

Neilson on Maslow

Quote:

"One outgrowth of Maslow's work is what has become known as Transpersonal Psychology, in which the focus is on the spiritual well-being of individuals, and values are advocated steadfastly. Transpersonal psychologists seek to blend Eastern religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) or Western (Christian, Jewish or Moslem) mysticism with a form of modern psychology. Frequently, the transpersonal psychologist rejects psychology's adoption of various scientific methods used in the natural sciences."
"The influence of the transpersonal movement remains small, but there is evidence that it is growing. I suspect that most psychologists would agree with Maslow that much of psychology -- including the psychology of religion -- needs an improved theoretical foundation."

3) Religion is positive factor in physical health.

"Doctrors find Power of faith hard to ignore
By Usha Lee McFarling
Knight Ridder News Service
(Dec. 23, 1998)
Http://www.tennessean.com/health/stories/98/trends1223.htm

Quote:

"Some suspect that the benefits of faith and churchgoing largely boil down to having social support — a factor that, by itself, has been shown to improve health. But the health effects of religion can't wholly be explained by social support. If, for example, you compare people who aren't religious with people who gather regularly for more secular reasons, the religious group is healthier. In Israel, studies comparing religious with secular kibbutzim showed the religious communes were healthier."Is this all a social effect you could get from going to the bridge club? It doesn't seem that way," said Koenig, who directs Duke's Center for the Study of Religion/Spirituality and Health .Another popular explanation for the link between religion and health is sin avoidance."

"The religious might be healthier because they are less likely to smoke, drink and engage in risky sex and more likely to wear seat belts.But when studies control for those factors, say by comparing religious nonsmokers with nonreligious nonsmokers, the religious factors still stand out. Compare smokers who are religious with those who are not and the churchgoing smokers have blood pressure as low as nonsmokers. "If you're a smoker, make sure you get your butt in church," said Larson, who conducted the smoking study."

see also: he Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993 For data on a many studies which support this conclusion.

4) Religion is the most powerful Factor in well being.

Poloma and Pendelton The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3290.

Quote:

"The authors found that religious satisfaction was the most powerful predicter of existential well being. The degree to which an individual felt close to God was the most important factor in terms of existential well-being. While frequency of prayer contributed to general life satisfaction and personal happiness. As a result of their study the authors concluded that it would be important to look at a combindation of religious items, including prayer, religionship with God, and other measures of religious experince to begin to adequately clearlify the associations of religious committment with general well-being."

(5) Greater happiness


Religion and Happiness

by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD

Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness

Argyle, M., and Hills, P. (2000). Religious experiences and their relations with happiness and personality. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 157-172.

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Nielsen, M. E. (1998). An assessment of religious conflicts and their resolutions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 181-190.

Nielsen again:

In the days before research boards reviewed research proposals before the studies were conducted, Pahnke devised an experiment to induce people to have a religious experience. On a Good Friday, when they were to meditate in a chapel for 2.5 hours, twenty theology students were given either psilocybin or a placebo. The students who were given the psilocybin reported intense religious experiences, as you might imagine. Their levels of happiness also were significantly greater than the control group reported. But what is especially interesting is that these effects remained 6 months after the experiment, as the psilocybin group reported more "persistent and positive changes" in their attitudes to life than did the placebo group.

Pahnke, W. H. (1966). Drugs and mysticism. International Journal of Parapsychology, 8, 295-314.

300 empirical studies prove value of religion!




Next: Instrict page 3

The Courage to BE VS the Cowardly Mind

Paul Tillich wrote a little paper back called The Courage To BE in which he set forth one of his most important concepts, the "God beyond God." That phrase refers to the truth of God beyond the cultural constructs and religious doctrines which are constructed out of cultural constructs. Of course Tillich didn't write in all this post structuralist jargon. The idea behind the title is that belief requires courage. A lot of people think he was saying that the existentialists have the real courage, but he was not only lauding the existentialist but any person of faith who is willing to seek God beyond traditionalism. The phrase "cowardly mind" I take from Joseph Campbell in his Hero With A Thousand Faces. There he says that cynicism appears as insight to the cowardly mind.

This is phrase is very apt for atheists on CARM and fora  huge segment of atheists in general, especially the "new atheists." What the phrase means is this, you have cynics who dogmatically take the negative, believe the worst, area always ready to tear down anything that isn't in their comfort zone. New thoughts and ideas are always a negative proposition for such people. Everything is bad you can be sure everything will turn out wrong. We see these people in Atheist circles and on Atheist message boards to a extreme degree. They think cynicism is insight because they are afraid to risk being wrong. These are the people who mock and ridicule faith because "belief without evidence is stupid." Usually they don't face belief without evidence they face a barrage of evidence which they ignore, they dogmatically sweep aside without truly examining it. We can see this in their responses to God arguments where they always take the option that is least likely. No matter how unlikely it is they will take over the risk of belief in God which may turn out to be wrong.

For example in my version of the cosmological argument (cosmological necessity) I can work it down to a choice between the unsupported possibility of a rules change beyond our space/time or some other unknown, like string membranes or something we have no support for, vs the probability which is on our side, that every we see requires a cause. They are always willing to assume that the unsupported is more likely becuase it supports their unbelief, and to assume that God is least likely because why? they don't want God. They are afraid to move beyond the template of their ideological socialization because that might be a risk and risks are always bad. That's a cynical move but they embrace it as insight. That's the point, the cowardly mind looks at the world and sees the constant critic who never says anything positive or supportive but constantly ridicules and they take this as "insight" because it supports not taking risks. Atheists are always lauding "skepticism" that's to be expected, they are skeptics of course. A certain amount of skepticism is good. But I find so many atheists expressing real contempt for the basic concept of belief itself especially if it invovles the unseen. They hate the concept of the unseen. To them that's a red flag to a bull. I think that is becasue the unseen threatens to take them out of their comfort zone where they have come to rest in the trumped up concept of science as all knowing; thus they place scinece in the place of God and expect it to save them from the angry God they  hope doesn't exist.

I can't blame anyone for rejecting the concept of hell on its face due to the absurdly revenge oriented nature of it. I can't blame anyone for dumping the concept of the big angry sky father as a instigator of the abruptly vengeful concept of hell. But this sort of thing gets to the point where they distort the meaning of faith itself, creating a straw man argument to the extent that "faith is believe any kind of evidence" to such an extent that the true meaning of faith, trust, is forgotten and seems  a foreign concept, than I just suspect this is the cowardly mind at work. They want their comfort zone which is built upon the assertion that only science matter, because scinece "proves" (supposedly) that religion is stupid so therefore they are not in danger. This I see as the cowardly mind because they are afraid to move beyond the safe confines of that which can be proved empirically and that which the white lab coat god will approve.

Recent run-ins on CARM have borne this out for me. One atheist self styled "Big Thinker" (yea, can you bleieve it?) was saying that God is imaginary. "Prove it" I say. His proof: God doesn't' exist. God is imaginary because he's only the mind. Astounding proof! The proof that he doesn't exist? He's not real. further prodding revealed his line of reasoning: imaginary things can't be seen, can't be detected with the senses, have no impact upon the world, and God is like this too. God can't be seen or detected with the senses and has no impact upon the world (that we can prove to his satisfaction)  therefore God must be imaginary. In other words, if you think it quakes like a duck, if you hallucinate that it walks like a duck, it it's in your fantasies that it looks like a duck, you might be having a delusion that you see a duck.

I try the old reliable ploy of bringing up thing in scince that fit the same criteria, we can detect them with the sense and they don't have a perceptible impact upon the world:

the singularity
the big bang
string membranes
dark matter
nutrinos
other subatomic particles.

The scoffed at the concept of dark matter, he must think it's a Christian doctrine. But when all was said and done what it came down to was, that stuff is ok, it doesn't matter that it meets the criteria of imaginary things because scinece guys say its ok, ("its part of a theoretical heuristic--he didn't know that word--that is demonstrated by a theoretical data matrix blah blah yada yada). My stuff that can't be seen is imaginary because it's not part of this er zots god thing he worships which protects from the angry god. In other words, if it's part of the ideological template it's ok. It's his stuff so it doesn't matter that that it meets the same criteria. It's only stuff not sanctioned by the ideological template that is indicative of delusion.

This tendency to abhor anything not part of the ideological temple is an aspect of the cowardly mind. Just ilke the guys who were afraid to look through the telescope and see mountains on the moon because they feared it would be a trick, they are refusing to think about things hey have not thought about before because they have their little world all worked out where its comfy and they don't have to think too hard and it is not scary because it keeps big mean god away. If they move out into the cold cruel world where we don't know everything then they might have to re think the big mean god thing and get scared again. It's this fear that kept people from sailing off the end of the world. Of course the real joke is that these cowardly minded people call themselves "free thinkers!"

Part of the myth that supports their comfort zone is the pretense that science is the only form of knowledge. That's how they know there's nothing to fear, becasue there's nothing beyond what science tells us is there. Science will never tell them the big mean god si there so they don't have to worry, but only so long as scinece is the only form of knowledge. If there are other forms of knowledge then they have to fear becasue one of those forms might tell them that there is something to think about in the unseen that will bring on fears of the big mean god. For this reason when his stuff meets the criteria of imaginary that's ok because it's sanctioned by the ideology, when it doesn't then we have to disparage it and go on message boards and mock and ridicule people who believe in it. In the old days we had an expression for that, it was called "special pleading."

Now it is true that these phenomena such as dark matter have some aspects that are supportive of their existence. We can't see them or detect them with our senses and we have no devices that will pick them up as radar detects a storm moving in, but there are ways of doing it:

John Polkinghorne (major physicist)*

To respond to (2) first: since no-one knows what Dark Matter is, almost anything is possible.  But Dark Matter is subject to gravity – that’s how we deduce that it is there.  Therefore any abnormal increase in the density of Dark Matter (such as would be associated with a putative DarkHomoSapiens) would presumably have measurable gravitational effects.  This rules out many obvious ways in which there might be a DarkHomoSapiens. And the whole area is so speculative that it is scientifically impossible to address meaningfully.

Polkinghorne himself did not write that but his assistant did, and we are told the man himself reads all and approves the answers. But thing is I've laboriously discussed in the past how we can detect the Trace of God, I just wrote a book about it. That book may be coming out in a few months (hint hint). Same your pennies. We have these 200 studies, yes peer reviewed, yes published in academic journals, and they show religious expression can be discernment scientifically and distinguished from fantasy and folly. Like the guys who refused to look through Galileo's telescope the atheists on CARM steadfastly refuse to look at a single study. I have put out the link to a chapter in the text book by Ralph Hood the major researcher on the M scale (inventor of the M scale) the leading researcher in the field. The chapter talks about the studies on mystical experience and explains the M scale in detail. They refuse to click on the link. I put it right in front of them and they wont look. All the while the insightful cynics steadfastly that the studies are no good, they are not in peer reviewed journals, they can't be trusted, yet none of them has ever bothered to get one!

That is the cowardly mind at work (not to mention laziness). They are so anxious to have the universe sealed off from God that mock and ridicule metaphysics but they are doing metaphysics all the time. It is metaphysics to say "there is no such things as the unseen." To say "there is no metaphysics" is a highly metaphysical statement. They are so anxious to have their comfort zones totally proved and supported 100% and declared the only form of truth that they are closing off possibilities and losing phenomena and special pleading all over the place. In fact most of what exists is unknown to us.


Polikinghorne again:

However since it is known that only 4% of the matter and energy in the Universe is made of what we understand as matter, and most of the universe seems, on current understandings, to be “dark matter” and “dark energy” about which we know nearly nothing, and no-one knows how to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity (the much-hyped String Theory looks increasingly like a dead-end) it is unwise to assume that current understandings of cosmology represent the last word.

I would suggest that this 4% is really more like 0.000000000000000000000000000x? When we take into account the whole of reality. The cowardly mind forms itself into a constant critic which must ridicule everything that crosses its path because it has to maintain the inviolability of the ideology at all costs. That means it's bound for a paradigm shift, it can't help but become top heavy with anomalies eventually.

One thing about Jesus, he's a good paradigm shifter.


*Retraction. I had originally called him a Nobel Prize winner. That was based upon an article by Fritz Shaffer on Leadership University, way back in 1998.  I can't find any reference to his being a Nobel winner although is very distinguished in physics. I suppose that was my mis-reading of the article.

Exhibit A

nothing demonstrates the stupidity,hatred, and know nothing nature of the brain washed like their own words.

read these links. Just remember these CARM threads are backwards to the normal way. So the last page is the first (the OP) and the last page (no 1) is the most recent. start at the op


 Shifting paradigms

atheist taunting and mockery of good sophisticated studies they can't understand

Bully boys in action

Here's an original post to  thread by so called "big thinker" the super rand puba of analytical thinking whose great seminal arguments we examined last time.

Meta,
Of all of the 300+ studies you have listed on your website, are any of them falsifiable?
If so, which ones and in what ways are they falsifiable?

If you don't mind, pick the absolute best one, the one that you think is the best 'slam dunk' 'that settles it' argument and explain how it could be falsified and let's talk about it.

Thanks,
BT

that looks nice.he's serious, so it seems. not insulting. So I gave him a serious answer.

All empirical quantitative studies can be verified and falsified.

these are all empirical studies, some qualitative but most of them quantitative, thus they are all verifiable.

There is no one single best study. Most are good some notable such as the Wuthnow becuase it was the first really rigorous scientific double blind study of its kind, on this topic.

I tired to give you the chapter on the M scale because it's the m scale that makes them all work. that's why they use it as standard procedure. Before that they all tried to make their own scales. But Hood succeeded in making one that is all purpose and can be verified.

Here's how he verifies it.

He has three things it's based upon

(1) the mystical of the world who write about their experiences
(2) W.E. Stace who read all the mystics and makes a theory about the experiences bases upon the writings.
(3) the actual data form interviewing modern people.

It also has three measurement scales.

(1) those who have experiences with specific reference to religious tradition such as "Christianity"

(2) those with no such reference

(3) the inoperative experiences such as the noetic quality (meaning mystical experience of a kind which does not usually have ideas in it--its beyond word, but some convey ideas where people feel they have learned things, such as "God is love."

Then the verification is

(1) the tests demonstrate Stace got it right, which verifies the mystics: modern respondents answer along the lines of the timeless mystics. so people in India 2000 years ago were having the very same kind of experiences people in Virginia today are having. This is by their own descriptions but the modern Americans have not read the guys in India.

(2) He tried with several other traditions apart form Christianity. Islam, Hinduism, a type of Hinduism called Vedanta and other traditions. Same answers.

(3) done with several other cultures: Iran, Japan, Europe, Russia, England, America other non English speaking countries.

all these answers come out the same. People all over the world are having the same experiences.

Now you might say "O that's contradicting Christianity." My view is there is one reality (the divine--God) behind all religions. We experience that beyond words and to put into words we have to use cultural constructs and that's what makes religions all seem different.

Hoods findings show that even when people with no religious beliefs have such experiences they relate to them in the same way the religious people do. In the interpretive aspects they are all learning the same things from these experiences (God is love, or if they don't believe in God the void is love, undifferentiated unity of all things and other such ideas).

they are all getting the same experience and they relate to it the same.

then the upshot is we can determine real mystical experience from fake becasue the correlations are such that the fakes stand out from the findings.

Now let's see what "the boys" do with it.

Uswername, (the genius who wants liberal arts taken out of universities)

Metacrock, you claim to have 300 studies. Then you claimed to have read them all and know what they say.

Are you qualified to make any kind of judgment of their findings? Are you SCIENTIFICALLY (not mythically, or poetically) qualified to know what the studies mean?

I think not. I think you should back up your bluster and submit the studies to a Science Forum.

You've had it easy, posting on a Christian site that lets you insult people freely. Go somewhere where you actually have to work hard to prove yourself.

Einstein or Darwin didn't have a free ride like you have gotten at the sites you haunt. Man up, big boy, pick a science forum and post your BEST study and let people evaluate it.

Until then, it's just more bald assertions on your part.

Now he knows very well what my credentials are, BA in sociology, studied social research methods, Doctoral work in history of science. Had help from the major researcher in studying the studies and writing the book. I've also made the sources pubic man times, put up links to the text that books that talks about them. But becuase I can't get a study on line and will not type one up he mocks and ridicules the studies and claims they are bad of course he wont look one up and never read one. These guys don't see anything wrong. They see this is totally my fault for being so stupid to think there could be a study that supports God (as though these studies are really simplistic enough to say "we  support God.")

from another thread I'm grousing about all the mocking and riducling  they do and "recall" say this:

"And all just because you refuse to spend the slightest bit of effort double-checking your own assertions before posting them for the entire world to see. "

here's what I told him


you are a liar. you hear me? I can prove that I consulted the guy wote the M scale. that's a fact. I can prove I consulted other academics who experts in the field. what you are saying is a lie, it 's calculated to destroy my trade when I publish the book, when i find out your real id I'm going to sue you for the cost of the book because you are destroying the market for it.

you are a liar and i can prove you are a liar. you have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to say things that immune the reputation of my book when you have no knowledge at all fo m y activities or efforts. you also have no right because I've made it extremely clear that I've a huge amount of work. ony becasue I wont do your work for you, it's your job not mine to attack the studies, becasue I wont do your work for you you want to destroy my reputation and my book.\

I will sue you. I will sue for all you have. understand you liar! do you understand liar!???


then the feeding frensy, ou are stupid, you don't know anything, you dont' have any studies you didn't go to school you aer not good you are liar you can't think your arument are stupid no one listens to you you are no good you a liar you can't do anyting you dont' know anything our arugment are lies no one cares what yiou say over and over and voer

but they not ideolgoical are they noawwwww. they are just internet. that' all it's not atheism it's just the internt. just blame the internet. 90% of them say these things. they are all mostly very stupid only a hand full are even capable of a serious conversation and they just keep at it all the time.


they are totally absolutely desperate to stop what I have to say.


link to thread here

and here

retracton

I took down the post about taking children form their parents because the author of it denied meaning that. He meant don't teach them what to be just let them learn things for themselves. I still think it's good to teach your children to be Chrisians, just make sure you are an open minded Christian and teach them to learn and to think for themselves. those are not contradictions.

There may come a time when they don't reach the conclusions you wish they did and that has to be accepted to. Make sure you tell them "I am a Christian I truly believe that's what's right." Tell them why it's true give them reasons. If you don't kow any read my website.

I had decided to take this down before I saw Hermit's comments but of course he's always on the ball waiting to tell me what I did wrong. he never comes to my aid no matter how extreme or unfair the attacks but he's always there to tell me I screwed up.

Atheist Ideology and the Socializied Solider

 I started atheist watch with the idea in mind of showing that a segment of the atheist community is moving in the direction of becoming a hate group. I've proved that in spades. But what's really come out of this site is that my understanding of the atheist psychology has mushroomed. I not only understand a bit about the psychology of the hateful loudmouth insulting kind of atheist but also I can see a whole range of issues that mark out atheism as a form of brain washing and ideology. When I say "a form of brain washing" I'm not that's distinct from being ideology. I think  ideology is a form of brain washing. I had a sociology of religion professor named Anson Shoupe in my days as an undergraduate. He became famous for the idea that there is no such thing as brain washing per se, "Brain washing is actually a form of socialization. Atheists find this socialization on message boards and in clubs. They are drawn to it for reasons that escape me but I supposed it has to do with the people who feel inferior because of their lack of education and they need to compare themselves so some hated group which they then demonstrate is intellectually inferior. Being unintellectual themselves most of hem don't have the slightest idea how to do that so they take the "easy way" they assume clinging to science makes them smart and rejecting evolution makes fudnies stupid, so if they hate fundies and cling to evolution then they are smart.

One can' easily see that atheism is an ideology. All you have is compare the way atheists act on message board with the way ideologues act. One thing Ideologues do is they don't argue rationally. Everything they hear something that contradicts their brain washing they have to make srue they call it names ridicule it and put it down and threaten it.This is what 90% of carm atheists every single time they hear anything that doesn't stack up to their views. All theistic  posts must be met with mocking and denunciation.

I say "I believe in God" they have to "that's just a fantasy." like no Bondy knows they think that. as though I've never been here before, what kind of board is this? It must be mouthed back immediately less someone out there think "well aybe there could be A god" the choral begins to scream no there could not no sire there never be no no o non ! THERE COULD NEVER BE A GOD SO DON'T EVEN THINK THAT WAY!!!!!


Here's one I hear all the time. they go Metarocks your ideas are so silly and so fallacious. no one believes what you say your ideas are stupid you cant' think.That's indicative of brain washing, Not thinking, it's not an argument, intellectuals don't do that. That's the way thugs, bully, brown shirts, school yard bullies and brain washed, skin heads people like that conduct themselves. When I tell the same ideas to professors (even athist professors) form graduate school they say "nothing wrong with that it's perfectly logical."

on the other baord BT says "there's no God he doesn't exist."

I say "what's your proof"

he says' "he doesn't exist."

that's not circular at all is it? then he turns right around and says that I'm into circular reasoning and he's an analytical thinker.

this kind of thing goes on all the time. I can name a dozen atheists on this board who act this way every day.

It's an ideology. it's not free thinking, it's not any kind of thinking.


Originally Posted by bigthinker

You assert that God exists, right? Prove it.

 I challenge him to prove his assertion becuase he stated bluntly that God is imaginary. Of cousre he said knee jerk in response to me disclosing about my faith. So just like an old fashioned catholic hearing something bad has to cross himself to get a blessing and keep evil away, the ideologue must respond knee jerk "there is not God." Like the guy on Star Trek "there are witches!"

Meta

My evidence is that God perfectly fits the description of imaginary beings: he is invisible,

He's not invisible. he's off scale. he's not an objective thing so he's not something we can see but he' snot "invisible." the concept of invisible is bending light rays not being imaginary. the invisible man is not the imaginary man.

Obviously God can effect things in reality, such as the lives of people who experience him and that's the whole point of the 200 studies. they show concrete results form feeling God's presence.

Big Thinker

doesn't have a body

Meta

what makes that imaginary? how do you know he doesn't have a body?

BT

does not impact the world outside of the human mind, 

 Meta

then how do people feel his presence and how it is that those who do have their lives so improved and are so much less likely to be depressed and mentally ill? How does he word miracles? that's obviously a contradiction to your nonsense.

how could an imaginary thing create a universe? IF the universe is proved to nee a creator (cosmological argument you can't beat it--you are afraid to debate me) then obviously God must create the universe and thus clearly has an effect on it.

BT

is not detectable, 

 Meta

I can feel his presence. the M scale proves that those who have this experience have experienced something real that changes their lives, therefore that prove they are really experiencing something that's not just some imaginary thing.

if imaginary things could change your life that way everyone would have a changed life.

your argument are asserting the naive position that to be real something has be detectable. But they have not as yet detected strings, dark matter, or bozons yet believes these to be real.

O great big thinker, please coordinate! Calling all bozons.

BT

leaves no measurable trace

 Meta

,

(1) the M scale makes mystical experience measurable.

(2) show me the measurable trace of dark matter?

BT

does not exist outside of the human mind etc etc.

Meta

this is he kind of circular argument taht I said not to make! I knew you coldn't do it. you can't give me a legitimate reason.

notice how he includes "doesn't exist outside of the human mind" as thought it's a proved fact that both sides accept and it's listed among the attributes he takes to be beyond question. So one of his arguments that God doesn't exist is that God doesn't exist.

here you are just using as a reason the thing trying to prove.

what are you trying to prove? That God is not real.

what's your argument? that God is not real.

these are the same thing! that's circular reasoning!

BT:

So , if God's essence shares the same characteristics as other imaginary beings, and does not have any characteristics that imaginary beings do not have, God must be imaginary.

Meta
imaginary like

dark matter
string
membranes
bozons
sh-leptons
neutrinos
gravitons
multiverse
singularity
big bang

like that? this is not a valid reason because it would eliminate everything in scinece that's been discovered since 1936.

Originally Posted by bigthinker

That's exactly correct.
So what other non-objective, invisible things exist outside of the mind? Can you name one or two?

Meta

I already did. can't you read? try dark matter, do you not know what that is? no you don't no one dose you have heard of it right? it's invisible it's outside the midn it's a mystery it's not solid. you can't touch it. Also try bozons.

BT

Invisible means can't be seen... Visible=seen/able to be seen. The prefix "in" means "not" or "without". When put in front of the word "visible" it modifies the meaning of "visible" to mean notvisible.

 Meta

no that's silly. that's not the word we use when things are off scale. we don't say we can't see beyond space/time because it's invisible. God is not an object standing in front of you, he's a mind thinking your existence. So obviously you can't see but that doesn't mean he's invisible. If you were a germ living on a dog the dog would not be seen, you would think hide was forest floor but he wouldn't be invisible.

I compared the idea of God to the invisible man in order to say he's not like that. To which this self appointed brilliant analytical mind says:

Really? Why, are there invisible men around? The invisible man is a figment of imagination, Meta...

Meta:

Yea, I said he's NOT LIKE THAT can't you read1?? you really can't read can you?

BT

Obviously? In what way is it obvious?

 Meta

it's undeniable and perceptible.

And what is the nature of this experience? Is it measurable?

No it's extremely nice.

BT

Is it detectable?

 Meta

yes, Newberg detected it.

BT

When a person has such an experience is it obvious to a third party observer?

 Meta

sometimes, Newberg can because it makes a certain part of the brain become more active than others.

BT

Theoretical. because they serve as hypothetical explanations. They are parts of different models which explain and describe certain natural processes.

Meta

so? they still not immediately perceptible to the sense. you are mixing in ideology. you are saying "I can lambaste your deal because it doesn't d x,y,z, but my stuff that I accept wholeheartedly doesn't do x,y,z but that's ok that's different." this is called "special pleading."

BT

You are certainly one of the most vocal of the gullible, non-critical thinkers here at CARM. The M Scale is meaningful ONLY to those who BELIEVE in it.

Now he feels the need to begin person ridicule. He's starting to feel a big awkward about spouting all the bilge and he's got to remind himself the ideology says "I am superior to all religious people I can feel good about myself as long as I hate Christians."

Meta

ahahhaah that's brilliant. your little ideology of hatred tells you that your enemy is inferior to you intellectually. Because you need to feel that you believe it. But because you ar inferior intellectually you don't know when when you are addressing your better and when you are not.

here's the guy who says "God doesn't exist, and my proof is, well he doesn't!"

but I'm the non analytical thinker? I['m the one talking about studies and modal logic he's over here begging the question never makes an argument cant' say anything other than "I refuse to bleieve therefore that proves it' not ture if it was true I could believe."

I'm the non analytical one. listen man if that's analytical then forget I'd rather be non analytical.

BT

I did not bring up dark matter....

 what he means by that I have no idea. I know I brought it up, so what?

BT

But if you would like to say that your god is only as real as dark matter, go for it! But it seems like a pretty stupid argument to me.

apparently this guy is dumb enough to think that dark matter is not real. Scientists think it's real, probalby he's never heard of it. He probalby thinks it's a religious idea.

Meta

I doubt that you even know what dark matter is. OF cousre go ahead and claim you do that puts you ahead of all physicists because no one knows.somehow mysteriously you seem to know that it's not like God. how? because you don't want it to be. we don't know what it is but you know what it's not like.

Of course in your great analytical insight you miss the obvious point, that real science and real analytical people accept the existence of things that fit the criteria you give form Imaginary. but that's ok because if you can argue in circles you can special plead. I've never seen you make an intelligent argument.

you rarely understand my point, you don't have a very broad knowledge base. Its' obvious you are not well read in anything. I can see why you need an ideology to tell you "you are superior to the evil Christians."

BT

You need to learn about circular arguments, Meta.

I've been learning from you, you are the expert.

he's the one saying God exists becasue he doesn't' exist but I'm doing the circular reasoning! ??
Meta

You're good at making them but very poor at pointing them out. My argument is that God is imaginary because he fits the description of other imaginary beings.

Yea so do all the major scientific discoveries I named.

subatomic particle
dark matter
string membranes
ect ect.


but that's ok because you just special plead and the inconsistency goes away.

this analytical thinking you supposedly do is a most wondrous thing. you can transform circular argument into cogent analysis just demanding that you can.

you can special plead all you want. wow. genius.

BT

My argument is also that God exists only in the mind. God is conceptual, does not impact the natural world (in a measurable, detectable, predictable, repeatable way). And so on and so forth.

 Meta

I've already shown that he does. you didn't have any proof. you did special pleading to make up for the fact that your criteria eliminates most major scientific discoveries of the last 50 years.

you still haven't given a reason. just reiterating what you believe is not proof.

Do you think that all of these things exist? In what way? The big bang is/was an event. It is also an idea that refers to events at the beginning of our universe. Scientists use the big bang idea as a model because it is the result of other data and fits the model.

 Meta

Scientist believe it's real sonny boy. they don't just make up a model for fun, that would like something you do. they have real reasons, its' the accepted model because it has empirical data, you know like the stuff you can't provide to back your views?

he's incredibly unread.

BT

The idea as such is certainly incomplete (at the very least) and may turn out to be altogether incorrect. However, at present, it works within the scope of models used by scientists.

 Meta

that doesn't change the fact that your criteria clerestories modern science. its' a silly criteria and you didn't forge a real argument anyway. It's some guy who don't know much spiting a bunch of bigoted nonsense because he hates some group and it makes him feel tough and powerful to say things like "I refuse to believe!"

what's so hilarious genius that a great analytical thinker who special pleads and argues in circles can' t provide one single example of any kind of cogent idea agaisnt the thing he hates so much.

I clean your clock every time we do this. you have not never produced a decent argument. and you must know you can't because you are afraid to debate me.

 then he began to tell me that I argue in a circle. It's not just carm it's on every atheists board. I literally cannot find one where it's not like that. Of course many people try to explain it way and just attributed it to the internet. they are just torlls a lot of trolls around. But he trolls act like skin heads and brown shirts, they act like people brain washed who can't stand to hear ideas not of their group in which they have been indoctrinated.