In a recent discussion with a theist I was told that atheism is a negative worldview. My immediate thoughts went to the actual meaning of atheism or the word atheist. What does it mean when someone states that they are an atheist?
atheist (n.)
1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
As you can see from the above definition taken from the Online Etomology Dictionary adding an "a" to the word theist simply states the opposite of what a thiest claims to believe; that God or gods exists. I myself as an atheist do not consider my atheism a worldview for the simple fact that one has nothing to do with the other. I see the word atheist as nothing more than a label that generally states what I don't believe in. Atheist like the word theist is nothing more than a general descriptive label and nothing more. Not all theists or atheists hold the same beliefs or worldviews as can be easily proven by randomly asking theists or atheists specific questions and comparing their answers to their fellow believers or nonbelievers.
Stating that one is a theist does not automatically make that person a Christian, Muslim, or Jew but rather generally states that they believe in supernatural entities such as gods, demons, demigods etc. What they as individuals believe on other matters beyond their theism has nothing to do with the label although it may be influenced by the ideology itself.
As an atheist I hold a more naturalistic view of the world and tht is the result of my rejection of the beliefs in the supernatural and the many beings others claim exists in that invisible unknown realm of existence. In my view there are only two alternatives: either you believe that gods exists and are behind everything in nature or you believe that gods do not exists and have nothing to do with nature. I choose to believe the latter position. I personally have no need for a belief in the Christian God or any gods for that matter. I don't need God to be happy since I am convinced that we can be happy on our own by seeking it and making up our minds to find it.
I find happiness in this life now by living in wonder of our universe and the greatest feeling of all which is that which is felt upon discovery and learning new things about the world and universe we inhabit. I find life itself awe inspiring and much more interesting than religion and gods which I classify as ancient beliefs based on myths and superstitions of the past.
My life without god beliefs may be influenced by my atheism but atheism itself is not my worldview. I don't see the divine in nature. I find nature to be amazing in and of itself and nothing fascinates me more than looking up at the night sky on a clear night with the knowledge that I am staring out millions and maybe billions of years into the past! The idea that the elements found on earth and that compose our bodies is found in stars (that we are star stuff) is simply mind blowing. It sure beats the hell out of believing that some invisible man in the sky made a man out of mud and blew the breath of life into him. Just writing that screams myth to me!
In conclusion: Just remember that atheism is not a worldview. It is a label and nothing more that refers to your lack in belief in gods and or supernatural realms and beings. That's it! Nothing more and nothing less. It may influence your other beliefs but it does not define them or who you are as a person.
that is a negative world view. It's also an organized movement. Not that you can't be an atheist and not be in the movement but there is a movement.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is correlated with low self esteem (in all fairness so is fundamentalism). There are studies:
Rejection of Christianity and low self esteem
You must be referring to yourself. I have very high self esteem and am happy without gods or imaginary beings to comfort me. I am a realist there is nothing negative about how I view the world. You already know what I think about your so called studies.
DeleteI'm not trying to comment about you I don't know you. like the studies on /RE (you have no counter evidence nor did you answer my arguments) its there for you to consider. You clearly do not have the courage to face the truth about the evidence so far, but It's not my place to judge your self esteem. I do hope you face that issue more honestly.
ReplyDeleteJoe Hinman said: "You clearly do not have the courage to face the truth about the evidence so far,"
DeleteSpoken like a true fundamentalist believer! What is there to be courageous about? I simply don't find your so called "evidence" convincing nor do I consider it valid evidence.
Joe Hinman said: "You clearly do not have the courage to face the truth about the evidence so far,"
ReplyDeleteSpoken like a true fundamentalist believer! What is there to be courageous about? I simply don't find your so called "evidence" convincing nor do I consider it valid evidence.
The studies my book is based upon are facts. That has nothing to do with fundamentalism Am atheist could see it if one would look. They are academic, most of them are done by atheists. They peer reviewed and published in academic journals, do you not know what that means? That is science duded! not fiundies it's not Christians its science.
you said they were Christians you dismissed them with that assumptive lie.
you have not read a one. you can't name a single one but you wrote them off becau8se they prove stu8ff you can't face.
Moreover I bet you don't know what a fundie is. You just know it's an atheist label or Christians.
Joe Hinman said: Moreover I bet you don't know what a fundie is. You just know it's an atheist label or Christians.
DeleteCute! Now your are bordering on the sad and comical all at once. I used to be a fundamentalist believer so of course I know what a fundie is. And yes there are fundie atheists I just don't happen to be one of them.
I am not condeming the research of your sources I am condemning your interpretation of their research. You say that so called mystical experiences are a worldwide phenomena. I have no problem with that and actually agree. But then you say that it is evidence of the existence of God or a trace of God's existence. I don't agree with that conclusion at all.
You claim that it is a trace of God but that it is interpreted differently. Have you ever wondered why that is? It's because they are based on preconcieved notions of the divine influenced entirely by the culture and society in which they are brought up and the relative beliefs inherent in those societies.
The experiences are not exactly alike either. They are similar in some aspects and very disimilar in others. Have you ever read anything on why hypnosis works? Hypnotic induction is the initial stage before one prepares to utilize hypnosis. Theists of all sorts that believe in charismatic gifts and phenomena as part of their religion are already primed for hypnosis through their preconcieved notions and beliefs. Their complete surrender to their emotions and their abandonment of reason leads them to have so called divine experiences within a religious context.
Cute! Now your are bordering on the sad and comical all at once. I used to be a fundamentalist believer so of course I know what a fundie is. And yes there are fundie atheists I just don't happen to be one of them.
ReplyDeleteYou know I sound nothing like a fundie. Few fundies ever insist upon the truth of their position based upon empirical studies.
I am not condeming the research of your sources I am condemning your interpretation of their research.
You know nothing about that because you have readnoth8ijng. I remind you I was advised in my interpretation by three of the major researchers. One of them I've had maybe 100 exchanges with by phone and email.
You say that so called mystical experiences are a worldwide phenomena. I have no problem with that and actually agree. But then you say that it is evidence of the existence of God or a trace of God's existence. I don't agree with that conclusion at all.
You agree? that's a reversal of your previous position. Before you argued that they are different. You also said the studies were just Christians making stuff up,
You claim that it is a trace of God but that it is interpreted differently. Have you ever wondered why that is? It's because they are based on preconcieved notions of the divine influenced entirely by the culture and society in which they are brought up and the relative beliefs inherent in those societies.
Of course they are that's just what I aid "we filter experience through culture." You are an atheist you reject God in all faiths remember?
The experiences are not exactly alike either. They are similar in some aspects and very disimilar in others. Have you ever read anything on why hypnosis works?
Shafranski and Mahoney study disprove any link between Mystical experience and hypnotism.
Hypnotic induction is the initial stage before one prepares to utilize hypnosis. Theists of all sorts that believe in charismatic gifts and phenomena as part of their religion are already primed for hypnosis through their preconcieved notions and beliefs. Their complete surrender to their emotions and their abandonment of reason leads them to have so called divine experiences within a religious context.
(1) I just named the study that disproves the link to hypnotism.
(2) No one is doing the hypnotizing as most ME is not related to an experience in groups. People are mostly alone when they have them.
(3) I've already argued they usually contradict cherished doctrine
(4) half of those who have them are children and children are not into doctrine that means they afre not getting preconceived notions,
(5) baptism of HS and gifts are not mystical experience.
Reply
I'm starting to feel like I'm on a merry-go-round with you. It's like talking to a fundie for sure. Whether you want to believe it or not there is an element of hypnosis in charismatic belief systems and their accompanying personal experiences of their adherents. I don't go so much by studies of others I go on my own personal experiences because I personally have had very powerful encounters with the divine.
DeleteAlthough in some cases these experiences are life changeing it does not always mean that those changes are absolute and enduring. Ini the Bible it's called backsliding and many believers both past and present have had their moments of weakness and have temporarily departed from or completely abandoned their former beliefs.
Btw, I am not going to sit here reading ten page articles you cite as evidence. I could do the same and refer you to hundreds of articles that would counter anything you throw at me. But I try to keep these discussions between myself and the one I am discsussing them with. I have my own mind and can express my own thoughts without referring to all types of so called authorities in this and that field.
Here's a perfect example why subjective experiences of the so called divine are not reliable evidence of the existence of god or encounters with god.
Deletehttp://wreg.com/2015/01/16/boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-admits-story-was-a-lie-book-pulled-from-shelves/
Yup, just in case it never occurred to you; people lie! Sometimes intentionally and other times our memories of said experiences are somewhat skewed or overly exaggerated.
get it through your head there is a thing called sociology. It is academic discipline. People whop practice it are called "social scientists," I majored in it. It basically uses questionnaires as the major research tool. They have scientific methods of dealing with lying. They can factor out habitual liars. That's why there4;s a 3% margin of errors.
ReplyDeleteThey have no reason to lie if they don't know what you are trying to learn., Questionnaires are constructed in such a say as to cover what you want to learn.
The findings of the M scale are the same among peasants in India and Iran as among Americans. No Iranian peasant is going to have read English philosopher W.T. Stace, the M scale was about validating his theory they would not even know how to begin lying about it.
as for your URL go look up the phrase "anecdotal evidence." Since that guy didn't take the M scale we don't know that he could lie on it.
ReplyDeleteatheism is a world view. It's the lens through which you view the world. It's also a movement. I prove that Here, by quoting it's leaders
ReplyDeleteJoe Hinman said: atheism is a world view. It's the lens through which you view the world. It's also a movement.
DeleteYou don't prove shit! You make a whole hell of a lot of assertions as if your views and opinions about everything and anything is right and everyone else in similar fields of study are wrong. That is called arrogance and you define it quite well.
I don't care what others in the so called "atheist movement" you
ve identified have to say. I don't view my world through the lens of atheism. All being an atheist means to me is that I don't believe in the bibilcal god or any gods or supernatural being for that matter. Anything else I belief or don't outside of that is irrelevant. There are atheists that believe in aliens, big foot, and all kinds of other shit.
To be an a-(without) theist (god beliefs or believer) means just that. Nothing more and nothing less.
By the way you are starting to look quite pathetic when I told you that I no longer wish to continue this discussion with you and you can't seem to get it throiugh your head that I don't care for your beliefs and don't find your so called evidence convincing not even a little bit. Just like a believer to try and force his beliefs on those that have clearly demonstrated that they;have no interest in your beliefs or theories about those beliefs. .
"You don't prove shit! You make a whole hell of a lot of assertions as if your views and opinions about everything and anything is right and everyone else in similar fields of study are wrong. That is called arrogance and you define it quite well."
ReplyDeleteOk let's weigh on balance who has the evidence in his favor: I have 200 studies done by academics, experts in social sciences, most of them atheists, I have the ear of the major researcher who approves my interpretation (he is not a Christian) and all of these studies were published in peer review journals.
You (1) have not read a single study8
(2) refuse to read the article explaining the book (I can tell by the things you say)
(3) blind unreasoning refusal to believe the evidence. That is not reason it's not argument, You do not even have an argument.
you are scared to death of hell but feel you've gone too far to repent so you must pretend at all cost that's no chance God is real. It's not too late, you have to face the facts, you are not doing that.
Joe Hinman said: "Ok let's weigh on balance who has the evidence in his favor: I have 200 studies done by academics, experts in social sciences"
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you know this but social science is not an exact science and making the types of assertions you are making based on a bunch of surveys is frivolous and careless at best.
Joe Hinman said: "you are scared to death of hell but feel you've gone too far to repent so you must pretend at all cost that's no chance God is real."
That is the dumbest and most ridiculous thing you have said to date! As an atheist I don't believe in God or gods of any kind. That includes the imaginary beings such as angels, demons, and or places found in the literature such as heaven, hell, or purgatory. That is what an atheist is. I thought you knew that.
Joe Hinman said: "you have to face the facts, you are not doing that."
The facts are that some subjective feelings and mystical experience doesn't mean that they are derived from God. My experience with this has led me to believe that they are caused by mental states. Otherwise why would one be required to "surrender" to the will of the Lord to experience them? In my church we were encouraged to pray for spiritual gifts. I at one point believed that I possessed all nine of these gifts and have used them in my ministry at one time or another.
People claimed to have been healed after I have prayed for them. The so called demon possessed would drop like rocks with a simple point of my finger or look from me. I thought myself anointed and full of the power of God and in the most humble way his vessel.
I had powerful dreams and visions quite often during those days. I have often awoken from those dreams speaking in tongues. I felt a constant presence in and around me at all times and meditated on the Lord in my every waking moment. I often read the BIble in a prayerful spirit asking for the Lord to reveal his truths to me. I have had plenty of so called mystical experiences to last me a life time.
When I started to doubt and to question my beliefs (that's called apostasy or backsliding) I could not leave without rationally working out how I was able to do and experience the many things I had. I am fully satisfied with the results of those inquiries.
I disagree with you when you say in your book that mystical experiences are life changing and have long term effects on everyone. For some of us those effects slowly go away depending on how we assess them. I quit smoking when I converted to Christ cold turkey and on the spot. The moment I got home I threw my cigarrettes in the garbage and got rid of what I called worldy music and books.
My life became Christ centered. I lived and breathed the gospel and and put my entire being into fulfilling the Christ commission to save souls and preach his gospel to everyone and anyone who would listen. My experiences were very real and my dedication was unquestionable.
As an atheist I have no need for gods. I don't have to thank him or it for anything I achieve in life with my own hard work and efforts. I don't have to worry about heaven or hell. I don't have to live a so called holy life to be good and contrary to what Jesus said in the Bible that "there is none that doeth good" I consider myself a good person. I don't drink or smoke I take care of my family and I live my life to the fullest knowing that it could all be taken away at the blink of an eye by an unexpected or uneventful death. That's life and that's reality my friend.
I wasn't going to say anything till I was done but I have been reading your book. Yes, I bought it on Amazon and am currently making my way through it as time permits.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is absolutely a worldview. I don't know how you can say otherwise. I get that it's a lack of belief in something, but functionally it is a worldview. For instance: an event happens that cannot be (at least currently) explained by natural forces. Theist: is open to the event occurring and is open to God(s) being involved in the event (this proves nothing either way, only that they look at it from a more open 'worldview'). The event may or may not be natural, but the point is how the event is viewed is affected by the belief in God. Atheist: Either believes the event did not happen (so, if there is a historical argument to be made that it did happen, the atheist will cut that argument out of their options) or believes that it can and eventually will be explained by natural scientific reasoning.
ReplyDeleteThis worldview operation can be seen when discussing something like the resurrection of Jesus. Someone who is agnostic or is a theist can look at the historical event and weigh out options - one of which can be that Jesus actually rose from the dead. An atheist however will look at the options and because of their worldview will say it is not possible that Jesus rose from the dead. No matter how much evidence, no matter how probable statistically it is (or isn't), it cannot happen therefore it must be looked at apart from that answer.
Atheism automatically functions as a worldview as it affects the way one perceives the world and interprets data (just as theism is).
Anyway, definitely an interesting topic.
http://godsfoolishness.blogspot.com/
Joe Olachea thanks for your comment on this subject. When I say worldview I don't mean from my atheist (lack of belief) but from how I view the world. When I think of atheists and atheism I see it for what it was meant to define. Atheism is not a worldview to me because I see it only as a label which defines my lack of belief in gods or supernatural entities and beings. That's it!
DeleteLet's look at the resurrection of Jesus for example. The biblical claim for the event states that he was in fact dead, and miraculously rose back to life three days later. Now, looking at this from a naturalistic perspective we know that brain cells do not regenerate and that once they are deprived of oxygen the brain and the entire organism begin to die. Once this happens there is no coming back from it.
I doubt the resurrection based on the fact that I don't trust the source of the narrative as credible, secular history has no record of the event nor the so called miraculous events that immediately followed, and I have yet to see a body after brain death revert to health and life after three days. Rigormotus and subsequent decomposition would have begun to set in. Also, when you read the narrative carefully you will come to realize that he did not lie in the tomb for three days but for nearly two days!
If it's improbable and statistally highly unlikely then I will side with reason on the matter. It has nothing to do with my being an atheist or not.
social science is not inexact. That shows a poor understanding of the nature of science. science is not about being exact or proving things. It's about testing hypothesis and it does not offer truth it offers "verisimilitude."
ReplyDeleteYour experiences from your life are not definitive. You did not have the ultimate Christian experience. You can't say that just because worked out arguments identifying problems with you8r background that you unrivaled the whole 2000 year shebang.
I told you up front that all you did was outgrow the provincial version of the faith you were raised in. enjoy the book
you are begging the question on the resurrection. Of course it has to be impossible that's what makes it a miracle. As for the validity of the account it has more than most things from that century. We really don't have that much in terms of first century.
ReplyDeletecome debate me on my 1x1 board. put your mouth where your mouth is ( we are not putting up- money). If you are so confident that it has no credibility what do you have to lose?
I never said science was exact. That is what I love about science unlike religion it does not claim absolute truth and is subject to change its views based on better hypothesis and its supporting evidence. Scienctific hypothesis and theories unlike religious faith claims are falsifiable.
DeleteRegarding your book I have finished reading it about two days ago. My opinions remain the same. I think that you give those statistics based on surveys and questionairres way too much credibility. Much more than they deserve.
The resurrection has many problems. Let's see, the synoptic gospels are not first hand accounts of the life and death of Jesus. In fact until about the mid second century those works were known as anonymous works. They werent attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke till later so technically their authors are unknown.
The various accounts of the resurrection as presented in the gospels greatly contradict each other. There are no secular documents that record in detail these so called miraculous accounts about the resurrection. Besides what's a miracle? Prove that miracles happen and show documented medical evidence to back your claims. Please spare me your so called rational warrant for belief in miracles or God spiel because it holds no water for me. I don't want a debate that is just my opinion on the matter.
you didn't address the issue of begging thye question.
ReplyDeleteyou:
I never said science was exact. That is what I love about science unlike religion it does not claim absolute truth and is subject to change its views based on better hypothesis and its supporting evidence. Scienctific hypothesis and theories unlike religious faith claims are falsifiable.
String theory is not falsifiable. Science is not at odds with religion. They deal with two different aspects of reality. They do different things. Religion deals with faith and spirituality so of course it's less falsifiable. Although some religious claims are falsifiable and some scientific claims are not.
Regarding your book I have finished reading it about two days ago. My opinions remain the same. I think that you give those statistics based on surveys and questionairres way too much credibility. Much more than they deserve.
You did not read it. you claimed to read things before but either you are very stupid and don't understand what you read (I don't think that) or you did not read it. I told you 80% of social science research comes from surveys, in the book I explain how Hood controls for things like lying.
tell me the third line of page 84, if you read it. Answer my argument about the Iranian peasants. How are these uneducated hicks who don't speak English going to lie in such a way as to validate Stace's theory? How could they know?
The resurrection has many problems. Let's see, the synoptic gospels are not first hand accounts of the life and death of Jesus.
They are derived from first hand accounts and recited under controlled conditions checked by the witnesses.
In fact until about the mid second century those works were known as anonymous works. They werent attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke till later so technically their authors are unknown.
the community was made up of witnesses and the community produced the Gospels. They don't have to be the work of the namesakes. A.so the AP's witness to who wrote what and they knew Apostles.
see my page story of empty tomb dates to mid first ccentiury
here
The various accounts of the resurrection as presented in the gospels greatly contradict each other.
That's totally understandable given the circumstances but they are harmonizable
here
There are no secular documents that record in detail these so called miraculous accounts about the resurrection. Besides what's a miracle?
why should there be? That's a ridiculous demand
Prove that miracles happen and show documented medical evidence to back your claims.
don't have to. we have good evidence of modern miracles so we can assume if they happened today they happened then.
here
Please spare me your so called rational warrant for belief in miracles or God spiel because it holds no water for me. I don't want a debate that is just my opinion on the matter.
You don't even know the evidence. this ploy is basically excusing yourself from having to argue. "spare me the thinking and thefacts."
I read your book on my kindle if you don't believe me then I don't give a shit. I don't need to argue with you since I don't have anything to prove. I am not the one who believes in stupid ass ancient myths and fairytales and dismiss those of other cultures and societies that don't agree with my own beliefs.
DeleteJoe Hinman: "The overall objective of my arguments is to show that religious belief is rational. It is not irrational to assume, on the basis of the effects of religious experience, that one has experienced the presence of the divine."
That's all that you can assume that so called RE or ME expriences are real and that their effects lead you to believe that God did it! In fact, that is all that your arguments amount to another we can't explain it naturally therefore God did it! Nice try but no cigar buddy.
What part of "I don't find your arguments convincing" do you not understand? Aside from your trying to relieve or flip the burden of proof onto those that disagree with your so called rational warrant for belief argument which you constantly remind the reader that you are not arguing to prove the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see a miracle and I don't believe accounts of miracles by people I have never met nor have seen the medical history or documented evidence of their illness before and after the miracle etc.
Hinman said: You don't even know the evidence. this ploy is basically excusing yourself from having to argue. "spare me the thinking and thefacts."
Sorry but the results of surveys and questionnaires are not facts. They are nothing more than subjective statistical data. In fact, let's use an example you may be able to comprehend. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts a census or count of it's citizens. They send out forms to as many households that they can and even send volunteers to take census in person.
A lot of people lie on these for many reasons and some do not reply at all. Illegal immigrants for instance may not record how many people reside at their home for fear of being discovered and deported. There are many reasons why these surveys are not accurate. Like your so called evidence of surveys and Hoods M scale (yet another survey) are as vulnerable to providing false results for many reasons regardless of the measure taken to prevent that. There are just too many variables to contend with. That's just my opinion.
Chatpilot, you said that you don't believe in fairytales. I don't think you are telling the truth. You are an Atheist, right? So, you probably believe that life came from non-life, don't you? If you do, that's a much bigger fairy tale than anything that Joe has been telling you.
ReplyDeleteHe is offering up good evidence. All you are doing is denying and making silly statements about gods and superstitions.
God did it is not evidence. Just because science does not fully comprehend the exact process of how life evolved from nonlife known as abiogenesis does not make it a fairy tale. It is known as a gap in scientific knowledge.
DeleteTheists love to utilize the god of the gaps arguments wherever there is a gap. For instance: We don't know how life evolved from nonlife (insert God here). I don't find Joes so called evidence convincing when he can't even prove the existence of a god let alone the Christian God specifically. What he provides in his pathetic book is as the subtitle states "A rational warrant for belief" which is based entirely on ones subjective experiences of the so called divine. His arguments are a combination of arguing from ignorance and god did it!
It's not a divine footprint as he describes it in his book that leads one to determine it must be God because of its long term life changing effects. It's not evidence its assumptions and poor speculation.
Abiogenesis is a fairy tale that never will be confirmed:
DeleteScience Against Evolution: Evolution and Abiogenesis
Science Against Evolution: Life in the Hot Lane
Nobody is making any "God of the Gaps" arguments. I didn't even mention God in my original message above. Also, you still haven't refuted Joe's work. You just continue to make statements that are off-base.
Let me tell you like I told Joe. I have no interest in arguing or refuting anything. I am not convinced by his arguments on his so called rational warrant for belief. I don't have to refute his assumptions becuase that is all that they really are.
DeleteFirst prove that god exists. Not just any god; but the Christian God both objectively and empirically and I might take your so called evidence more seriously. Until you can do that you are arguing from ignorance and anything you say about the matter is nothing more than assumptions based on your religiously biased interpretations of so called RE or ME.
The atheist meme that states We are all atheists I just go one god further applies here. In other words you are biased towards other gods as the one true god if not than you may be polytheists and believe in them all. But saying that your preffered god is the one true god is nothing more than your own delusional confirmation bias where you only see evidence that favors your god of choice.
If you're convinced by stupid arguments be my guess. I actually am not. First prove that the Christian God exists until you do we have nothing to talk about.
What part of "I don't find your arguments convincing" do you not understand?
ReplyDeleteIt's why you don't that's important. To avoid fear of hell you wont allow yourself to think about the evidence. You do not have a rational position. you have not read the material and you have no argument. You are just gainsaying the evidenced.
Aside from your trying to relieve or flip the burden of proof onto those that disagree with your so called rational warrant for belief argument which you constantly remind the reader that you are not arguing to prove the existence of God.
that's not even a complete sentence I met my prima facie burden so you do have the burden of proof and you have nothing with which to meet it. In fact you need burden of proof 101 just to get in the discussion..
I have yet to see a miracle and I don't believe accounts of miracles by people I have never met nor have seen the medical history or documented evidence of their illness before and after the miracle etc.
argument from incredulity is not disproof. you didn't read that article or you should know that documented evidence is just what they do have. They can't be declared healed without medical history and proof they were sick. THOSE ARE THE RULES!
Hinman said: You don't even know the evidence. this ploy is basically excusing yourself from having to argue. "spare me the thinking and the facts."
Sorry but the results of surveys and questionnaires are not facts.
remember the first article you claimed to have read? that explained how the survey's established fact. Remember the Iranian peasants that proves the facts. 200 peer reviewed studies in academicjou8rnals how did they get published? how did they get the articles past the referees? The referees think they are facts.
They are nothing more than subjective statistical data. In fact, let's use an example you may be able to comprehend. The U.S. Census Bureau conducts a census or count of it's citizens. They send out forms to as many households that they can and even send volunteers to take census in person.
so what? what part of "80% of social science research is surveys do you not get? your argument back fires because the census is highly accurate. Not all surveys have to be a census bur they are not trying to validate an hypothesis.
A lot of people lie on these for many reasons and some do not reply at all. Illegal immigrants for instance may not record how many people reside at their home for fear of being discovered and deported.
ALREADY ANSWERED IT. it's That is what the Iranian peasants are about. How did they know how to lie in such a way as to validate Stace?.you have never even tried to answer it. If you read my book you would have known about that.
There are many reasons why these surveys are not accurate. Like your so called evidence of surveys and Hoods M scale (yet another survey) are as vulnerable to providing false results for many reasons regardless of the measure taken to prevent that. There are just too many variables to contend with. That's just my opinion
(1) you cannot tello me what false results are
(2) you have no data you do not know a single case you are clutching in the dark to find a straw.
(3) if that were true there would be no published studies in stead of 200, that is what r review is for
(4) you do not know more than a Ph,D. who is a professor and immanent in , in fact basically don't know much of what you say.his field.
"To avoid fear of hell you wont allow yourself to think about the evidence."
ReplyDeleteWow! Do you even know what an atheist is? I don't have a fear of hell because I don't believe in hell, heaven, gods, demons, angels, fairies, or goblins or any other ridiculous beings and inventions of man.
you do not know more than a Ph,D. who is a professor and immanent in , in fact basically don't know much of what you say.his field.
How cute you'll be surprised how damn dumb some phd's are it's like having a doctorate in theology lol. You might as well call it a doctorate in the study of nothing. Since as believers you can't even define what this God is nor even prove his existence.
Lastly, I don't have the burden of proof to falsify your assumptions. You have not proven shit in my opinion. Like I said previously I don't give a shit if you believe that I read your book or not calling me a liar does not bother me one bit. If anything you are a liar claiming to have proven the rationality of your ridiculous yet unproven beliefs. I can't falsify nor disprove an assumption based on surveys lol. The social sciences are not exact and are based for the most part on hypothesis and flimsy theories based on those hypotheses.
You're preaching to the choir here buddy. I don't care about your so called beliefs nor do I find your so called "evidence" convincing it's as simple as that. I don't do it for fear of hell or anything ridiculous like that. Even if hell were real it would just prove to me that your god is a tyranical, dictatorial, megalomanical dick! Hitler and him should hang out if that were possible.