Sunday, October 11, 2015

Chatpilot's "God is a Mythy" site.


part 2 of prescriptive/descriptive laws of physics coming Wednessday
 photo small_zps83991bfc.jpeg

http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-pros-of-atheism.html

ChatpilotOctober 9, 2015 at 5:55 PM
My devotion to Jesus started out as love and gratitude for saving me a poor wretched piece of shit sinner. I praised and adored him every waking moment of every day. But... fear was always present when it came to displeasing him. In fact, the Bible often admonishes believers to fear the Lord.
Here we have a good indication that his conversion was not real. "perfect love casts out fear." Thank God the person who led me to the Lord taught me that God wants us to love ourselves.

I could care less what that blogger says the rules of logical reasoning state that the one making the positive claim must bear the burden of proof. I can't disprove that God does not exist but I am not making that definitive claim that he does not exist. I am simply stating that if you say he does then prove it! If you don't understand that then I can't help you.
The atheists struggle to keep their exemption from the burden to proof. Of course atheists don't care about logic, its about convincing themselves the ideology is true. Look at the double standard. They make all kinds of claims about Christianity and slough off proof with "I didn't say God doesn't exist.? JB told him about my book and showed him my list of God arguments but he still says "you have to prove God exists before you can assert anything about Go0d." That's the old >you must prove God before you can argue for God." So there is no way to ever meet a prima facie burden but they never have to prove anything. That is irrational. Chatpilot is a bright guy and he strikes me as ones, but he's picked up the bad habits the ideological brainwashing teaches. He must show why my list of 42 God arguments and my book are not close enough to proof to allow statements about God?

Here's what he says about the book:

Chatpilot:
Thanks for sharing that link. But after a cursory perusal of the information provided by the author I have found no need to have to read his 418 page book. Let me explain: First off his idea of God is not the traditional view of God as recognized and believed in by the majority of the Christian churches of our day and age.
why must one have a traditional understanding. Where does he get the idea that only the traditional view is valid? More over God as being itself is a tradition in Christian theology going back to John of Damascus in the 800s.

Chatpilot:

He states clearly that his concept of God is "not an argument for the existence of God" so you are using this information improperly here. He also makes abstract assertions of God who he claims is beyond our understanding.
he quotes me:
"God is primordial being. God is ontologically prior to all that is (save himself of course that goes without saying)." " God is the framework in which our whole existence takes place, we can't think of God as "a being" because he's totlaly off scale, hes not a being along side other beings hes' the basis upon which beingness has any meaning."

Chatpilot: These are some very big claims that forego the most essential step of all which is proving the existence of God. This is also known as putting the horse before the carriage. Second, how can you make any assertions about something which at the same time you claim is beyond human understanding? God is supposed to be ineffable yet Christians put a lot of time and effort trying to describe and understand what is supposed to be impossible to know.
Metacrock: He says this in response to my list of arguments and my book (which backs two arguments from experience). In saying that I can't make states about my belief until I prove it, when those states are the advancement of arguments to "prove" it (justify) is the old fallacy prove the argument before you can make it. That's obviously an illogical and unfair burden as it would mean no one could ever make an argument.
Chatpilot:
The author brings nothing new to the table. It's nothing more than a bunch of empty assertions thought up in his mind in order to convince himself and others of the existence of a being he believes to exist. Finally, if anything his initial description of God sounds more like the deistic view of God making him a deist and not a Christian.
Metacrock:
So many atheists have asserted that I made this up and no one else believes it, totally irrational since I'm quoting theologians all the time. It's totally obvious I didn't make it up. Of course he refuses to read the book. see the side bar for link to amazon for The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman. When he says I bring nothing new to the table that just shows he has not read any of the arguments (the two arguments covered in the book are on the list on Doxa. I defy you to find anyone who uses the arguments I use! God is being itself? The Transcendental signifier, who says that? Did he read any of it?

What other apologist has 200 studies backing up his arguments and deals with them in such depth he writes a 400 page book about it? Not that I'm putting myself up with Swinburne or Plantinga but no message board poster does that. The Trace is a ground breaking work. All I did was report on the work of Dr. Hood. But Hood comes real close to proof. He guy demands proof but he wont listen when he gets it (or wont read it).That is another reason to think there's a brain washing process, because it's so common.

Chatpilot
You can't claim to know something on the one hand then in the same breath claim that he or it is unknowable. That is what is known as a contradiction or a paradox.
Metacrock: Of course you can because I specified different ways of knowing. We can't know exhaustively, or I accurate verbiage but we can experience God and know through experiential means.

35 comments:

Chatpilot said...

One reason I don't consider experience as valid evidence of the existence of God is that if I accept your "experiences" I must also accept those of others followers of other world religions claiming the truth of their beliefs based on experience.

How is proving the existence of God first illogical before describing him. The Bible for instance in my view is not valid evidence of God either. If I accept the Bible then I must also accept all the other so called holy texts out there making claims to the truth of their beliefs and their god or gods. For Christianity all of their assertions about their god are based on the Bible in some form or another. Without the Bible your ideas and concepts of God are empty and baseless.

Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a first cause which is in and of itself uncaused (special pleading). Then who is to say that it is the Christian concept of God? That first cause could be a force like one of energies myriad forms. Or even a force that is yet unknown and undiscovered at this time.

You can't say God is eternal, uncaused, the prime mover, being itself, etc. etc. without first proving that this being exists. I don't see how that is an irrational and illogical request. Without the BIble you wouldn't even have a clue that this god existed.

Joe Hinman said...

Chatpilot reason I don't consider experience as valid evidence of the existence of God is that if I accept your "experiences" I must also accept those of others followers of other world religions claiming the truth of their beliefs based on experience.

Me:>>>One of the findings of Hood's studies, when they took the names away the experiences were the same. It's the cu8ltu8ral trappings of doctrine used to explain the experience that makes the religions different. That goes around the world. Paul says anyone following the moral law in his heart is following Jesus defacto (my paraphrase--Romans 2:6-14).

ChatpilotOne How is proving the existence of God first illogical before describing him.

(1) You said that of my arguments for God; if every time one makes a God argument you demand proof first no proof could ever be given because before it could be you would demand proof that the upcoming proof have proof.

(2)we have to hypothesize to know what we are trying to prove.

(3)I already believe based upon my own reasons. How can I tell you what I believe and why should I not be able to?

Joe Hinman said...

Chatpilot The Bible for instance in my view is not valid evidence of God either. If I accept the Bible then I must also accept all the other so called holy texts out there making claims to the truth of their beliefs and their god or gods.

>>>>(1)I did not appeal to the Bible

(2) straw man argument, you are u8sing that as an excuse to avoid the real issues. I don't blame that's a limitation of your back grou8nd (no offense==I've been there).

(3) you have to read it critically. My first cou8ple of summers ou8t of high school I studied to writing book disproving the bible. I found a scholar who I thought was tearing the Bible up. I thought he must be an atheist. Half way through this guy's book he started talking abou8t "ou8r Lord!" But the tore the bible up! I fou8nd out latter he was B.H. Streeter, Cambridge, had a reputation as a devout believer. I knew so little about theology I had no ideas that believers can talk that way about the Bible. My background was limited to country hicks in Texas.


Chatpilot One For Christianity all of their assertions about their god are based on the Bible in some form or another. Without the Bible your ideas and concepts of God are empty and baseless.

>>>that is simply the result of having no experience with theology. It's a two thousand year old tradition so its very diverse. The historical critical method is the basis of modern theology, that dates to the early modern period with pre curers in the middle ages. They use logic, history, physics, social sciences.

Chatpilot Let's say for the sake of argument that there is a first cause which is in and of itself uncaused (special pleading).


>>>what's illogical about it? There has to be a stopping point somewhere since ICR is illogical (infinite causal regression).


Joe Hinman said...

ChatpilotThen who is to say that it is the Christian concept of God? That first cause could be a force like one of energies myriad forms. Or even a force that is yet unknown and undiscovered at this time.

>>you mean Platonic forms? Plato thought there had to be a form of the forms, a single one that made the others work. Augustine said that single highest form was the mind of God.

That's the sort of ting we use logic for. But God transcends our understanding. We can experience God but we can't pin down the reality of God in words. Cultural constructs have to be used as a filter tov put it in a context we can relate to. That's the role of the Bible. Christian theology is not limited to the Bible.

Moreover, Jesus is the argument for which tradition is closest to what God is really about. Jesus is a historical guy so we can understand what he tells us.

ChatpilotYou can't say God is eternal, uncaused, the prime mover, being itself, etc. etc. without first proving that this being exists. I don't see how that is an irrational and illogical request.

(1) again, the material you were demanding proof for is the proof. Had you bothered to read any of my arguments you would see that the first one establishes that eternal necessary being is the nature of the case. The alternative is ICR which is illogical on several counts. The Hilbert hotel to name one.

(2)since these qualities are the description of God we are rationally justified in assuming that God is real.


(3) if the skeptic wants to assert that other things might also fit then he has to prove which one's and how. Just asserting the possibility doesn't cut it.

I have 51 more. 10 more on another sight.

ChatpilotWithout the BIble you wouldn't even have a clue that this god existed.

that's what I thought when I discovered Streeter's work. That's what people think who have not studied theology.

Joe Hinman said...

sorry my answers are so badly written, I sound like an eight year old. they don't allow editing.

JBsptfn said...

I found Streeter's book on Amazon. I may pick up a copy.

I feel bad for this guy. From one fundamentalism to another. My prayers go out to him.

Joe Hinman said...

we are all limited by our backgrounds. He seems honest and I'm sure he will expand his horizon. I am trying to learn from everyone, except Trump. ;-)

JBsptfn said...

Joe,

Speaking of Trump, you have to check Stan's most recent entry out:

Atheism-Analyzed: Obama has failed us and we are taking back the country

It's a video of a black man outside a store railing against Obama, and saying that Trump will solve our problems.

Joe Hinman said...

that's why I don't use that guy's site

JBsptfn said...

After searching his site for Trump, I don't think that Stan loves Trump (he hates Obama, though), but it seems to me that he wants another party to form to destroy the Republicans (he is right wing, but not a Republican), and he sees Trump as a tool that may lead to their destruction. He said that he either wouldn't vote or vote for Trump if Donald ran as an independent or with a new party opposite Bush and the Democrat candidate.

Joe Hinman said...

I want to see Trump run on 3d party. I wouldn't vote for him, but I'd love to see it.

Chatpilot said...

Here we have a good indication that his conversion was not real. "perfect love casts out fear."

I take great offence to this assertion especially by those who tout their god beliefs so much on experience. My relationship with your god was very deep and personal to me. I was an evangelist and had a deliverance ministry for four years. I have preached in churches, on the streets, and on Spanish radio. I tried to live the Word not simply learn and recite it. I surrendered entirely to what i believed to be the will of God in those days when I was a believer.

I don't accept your god beliefs because if I do I would have to accept all the others as well. Read John Loftus's book The Outsider Test for Faith you can't say that he did not understand theology when in fact he was a trained theologian who is now an atheist. In fact, he has recently written a new book entitled How to Defend The Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.

Joe Hinman said...

Here we have a good indication that his conversion was not real. "perfect love casts out fear."

I take great offence to this assertion especially by those who tout their god beliefs so much on experience. My relationship with your god was very deep and personal to me. I was an evangelist and had a deliverance ministry for four years. I have preached in churches, on the streets, and on Spanish radio. I tried to live the Word not simply learn and recite it. I surrendered entirely to what i believed to be the will of God in those days when I was a believer.

I am sorry you took offense. I did not mean to insult you. Nor was I saying I'm better or any such thing. How can you claim that your relation ship with God was real and yet you don't believe in God? You a deliverance ministry but surely you were casting out demons? If you believe in demons how can you be an atheist?

why did ypu stop?


I don't accept your god beliefs because if I do I would have to accept all the others as well. Read John Loftus's book The Outsider Test for Faith you can't say that he did not understand theology when in fact he was a trained theologian who is now an atheist. In fact, he has recently written a new book entitled How to Defend The Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist.

I li9ke John. I consider him a friend. I'm the one who shut up Christians who claimed he did not study with Craig. I asked Craig then put it about that he really did. hey truth is truth.

read my exchanges with John. He said I am "the real deal" intellectually. He said it.

Your assumption is false you do not have to assume all religions are true. It could be one is true the others are counterfeit. what's more likely is that religions are all relative. God is speaking to all people, Acts 17 "we are all his offspring." I'm going to put up a link. we filter our experiences through culture. that makes them all seem different. I've already talked aout hyow tye experiences are all tye same. thyink of what that means.

Joe Hinman said...

please read my essay b"salvation and other faiths" for a complete answer onj my comments above. It really answers your Loftus argument.

Chatpilot said...

"How can you claim that your relation ship with God was real and yet you don't believe in God?"

If you accept the Bible as the word of God as I did in those days then apostasy is nothing new. The ancient Hebrews continually backslid from God even having his presence walking and talking with them and performing countless miracles for them. He gave them water, manna, in the desert etc. and they still kept turning their back on him.

"You a deliverance ministry but surely you were casting out demons? If you believe in demons how can you be an atheist?"

I no longer believe in demons and have found alternative psychological and natural explanations to many of the experiences I have had in my ministry and have discarded those beliefs.

If you are interested you can read my complete deconversion story as it appears on my blog here: http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-complete-deconversion-story-all-13.html

I no longer feel a need for a god in my life and currently believe that all gods and the religious institutions made to serve them are nothing more than the inventions of man.

Joe Hinman said...

you quotin me:"How can you claim that your relation ship with God was real and yet you don't believe in God?"

If you accept the Bible as the word of God as I did in those days then apostasy is nothing new. The ancient Hebrews continually backslid from God even having his presence walking and talking with them and performing countless miracles for them. He gave them water, manna, in the desert etc. and they still kept turning their back on him.

That does not answer my argument. How can you say your relationship with God was real when you don't believe there's a God to have a relationship with? You might say you were sincere, but misguided. I did not say you were not sincere I said your fear was indicative of not being mature in your knowing of God.

"You a deliverance ministry but surely you were casting out demons? If you believe in demons how can you be an atheist?"

ChatpilotI no longer believe in demons and have found alternative psychological and natural explanations to many of the experiences I have had in my ministry and have discarded those beliefs.


That's fine one need not believe in demons to be a Christian. I don't believe in literal demons. I believe in geslalt in psychology that functions asthe demonic.


If you are interested you can read my complete deconversion story as it appears on my blog here: http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-complete-deconversion-story-all-13.html
you read my conversion story? I was an atheist. How I got saved and became Metacrock

I no longer feel a need for a god in my life and currently believe that all gods and the religious institutions made to serve them are nothing more than the inventions of man.

I can and have proved that's false. whatever else religion is it's a valid response to the depth of being. my book proves that.Read about my book and buy it on Amazon

Chatpilot said...

"How can you say your relationship with God was real when you don't believe there's a God to have a relationship with?"

Are you kidding me? Seriously speaking do I have to really explain this to you? I am speaking of the past and what I believed then. I did believe in God and I did serve him and dedicated those four years entirely to him. Remember that this was in 1990-1994 my views have changed since then. I am an atheist and no longer believe in God. In fact, I believe that like most believers I was deluded in my beliefs and now consider them to be false and driven by my emotions and mental states. There is no evdience for the existence of the Christian deity or of any gods for that matter.

"I did not say you were not sincere I said your fear was indicative of not being mature in your knowing of God."

My fear came later as I began to have doubts about my beliefs. Ironically, it was my reading of the scriptures in their entirety three times in English and once in Spanish that sealed the deal for me. I no longer saw God as a loving being but a monster. In fact, today I tend to compare him to Hitler and other human monsters in history but I believe that if he did exist he would be worst than any of them.

"religion is it's a valid response to the depth of being"

I have no use for gods in my life. I believe that we all live and as biological (not spiritual creatures with souls) we all will die and our bodies will decay. That is all. There is no heaven, hell, or eternal life nor a god who will reign over the saved etc. I find reality much more inspiring and refreshing than the flights of fantasy provided by religious beliefs.

Chatpilot said...

"The experience of being raised to a higher level through contact with the divine life is clearly empirical. It may be a matter of interpretation as to the cause of the effects, but the effects of what is called “religious experience” are certainly empirical."

After having read your testimony I find it ironic and fascinating how two people can have similar experiences and yet come to two very different conclusions. I then went on to read your book description in your own words and came to the following conclusions and cirticisms.

When I think of the word supernatural and its meaning I tend to go with the traditional definition of it being that which is beyond above and beyond nature. The online Merriam Webster dictionary defines it as : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

You have redefined the supernatural in a more spiritual and religious sense by calling it: "The experience of being raised to a higher level through contact with the divine" You correctly state that these experiences are subject to individual interpretation but incorrectly state that these experiences are in fact empirical in nature. Of course I agree that these experiences are very real and quite common not just amongst Christians but other charismatic religions worldwide. But in my view they are all caused by mental states due to our preconcieved beliefs and or indoctrination. The only thing empirical about these experiences is that they are caused by mental states. Otherwise the experiences themselves are nothing more than subjective as well as their interpretations.

For instance, if a person takes hallucinogenic drugs and has either a pleasant or bad trip does the fact that the drug induced the trips make the experiences real? As I'm sure you know our brains in fact our entire organisms are driven by biochemical processes. Certain chemical reactions or lack thereof in our brain have been revealed to be the causes of mental disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, etc. The kicker is that all of these are caused by biochemical interactions in the brain. You don't need gods or demons to explain these.

So called divine experiences are in my view not reliable or empirical evidence of the existence of gods. They are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain which we then interpret as demonic or divine.

Joe Hinman said...

ME"The experience of being raised to a higher level through contact with the divine life is clearly empirical. It may be a matter of interpretation as to the cause of the effects, but the effects of what is called “religious experience” are certainly empirical."

Chat pilotAfter having read your testimony I find it ironic and fascinating how two people can have similar experiences and yet come to two very different conclusions. I then went on to read your book description in your own words and came to the following conclusions and cirticisms.

It has not been established that we did have similar experiences? Besides I still think your problem is the need to expand your understanding of Christianity.

When I think of the word supernatural and its meaning I tend to go with the traditional definition of it being that which is beyond above and beyond nature. The online Merriam Webster dictionary defines it as : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

That is not what it means. Webster's is not good to use here because its a technical term in theology. It was changed in the enlightenment.

You have redefined the supernatural in a more spiritual and religious sense by calling it: "The experience of being raised to a higher level through contact with the divine" You correctly state that these experiences are subject to individual interpretation but incorrectly state that these experiences are in fact empirical in nature. Of course I agree that these experiences are very real and quite common not just amongst Christians but other charismatic religions worldwide. But in my view they are all caused by mental states due to our preconcieved beliefs and or indoctrination. The only thing empirical about these experiences is that they are caused by mental states. Otherwise the experiences themselves are nothing more than subjective as well as their interpretations.

In the book I show it is disproved that they are the result of pre conceived notions. First if that were true the experiences would not be the same around the world. They are. Secondly half of them are in childhood, other studies prove children do not have doctrinal pre-conceptions. BTW I returned to the original definition of SN I did not make up a new one.

For instance, if a person takes hallucinogenic drugs and has either a pleasant or bad trip does the fact that the drug induced the trips make the experiences real? As I'm sure you know our brains in fact our entire organisms are driven by biochemical processes. Certain chemical reactions or lack thereof in our brain have been revealed to be the causes of mental disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, etc. The kicker is that all of these are caused by biochemical interactions in the brain. You don't need gods or demons to explain these.

I disproved the chemical connection. As I said those researches don't use a control mechanism like the M scale to establish what is a mystical experiences. That invalidates their findings.

So called divine experiences are in my view not reliable or empirical evidence of the existence of gods. They are nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain which we then interpret as demonic or divine.

They are obviou8sly more thyan chemical reactions or tey would not transform lives. Two reasons why they are indicative of God (they are nota"prof" they are warrant--justification for believing).

(1) the experiences are the same around the world and they should not be (because religious constructs are cultural). The fact that they are that proves there is an objective reali8ty there.

(2) they fit the epistemic criteria we use to navigate in the world. That means they are as justified as any other observation of reality.

Joe Hinman said...


Metacrock:..."How can you say your relationship with God was real when you don't believe there's a God to have a relationship with?"

Chatpilot:...Are you kidding me? Seriously speaking do I have to really explain this to you? I am speaking of the past and what I believed then. I did believe in God and I did serve him and dedicated those four years entirely to him.

I never questioned your sincerity. You8 start by admitting that you were motivated by fear. It's proved by over 200 studies over 50v years using all kinds of methodologies that people who have mystical Experience or/and Baptism of HS are not motivated by fear! Famous statement by an atheist sociologist (Abraham Maslow) says mystical experience abolishes fear, even fear of death. It's empirically proven.


Chatpilot Remember that this was in 1990-1994 my views have changed since then. I am an atheist and no longer believe in God. In fact, I believe that like most believers I was deluded in my beliefs and now consider them to be false and driven by my emotions and mental states. There is no evdience for the existence of the Christian deity or of any gods for that matter.

Meta: I could never deny the experiences I've had. Even when I have been disillusioned and disappointed and angry at God I could not deny that something real is there that i experienced.

Joe Hinman said...


Metacrock..."I did not say you were not sincere I said your fear was indicative of not being mature in your knowing of God."

Chatpilot:...My fear came later as I began to have doubts about my beliefs. Ironically, it was my reading of the scriptures in their entirety three times in English and once in Spanish that sealed the deal for me. I no longer saw God as a loving being but a monster. In fact, today I tend to compare him to Hitler and other human monsters in history but I believe that if he did exist he would be worst than any of them.

Metacrock:...That's a job for theology. Had you been free to seek deeper understanding you might have realized that inerrancy is a bad idea. The OT is basically there to create a framework in which the mission of Messiah makes sense. But it is largely mythological. That brings up to possibilities: either (1) you did not fall away from God but your responding to a narrow provincial view that you are not yet free to shed, so you threw the baby out with the bath. or (2)your experiences were not real. but they can be now. Only you can decide which. Not my place to answer that, but I am within my rights to say that fear is indicative of a problem.

Metacrock:..." "religion is a valid response to the depth of being"

Chatpilot:..."I have no use for gods in my life.

Metacrock: I am not urging you to accept "gods," I'm urging you to awaken to thye depth of being.


Chatpilot..." I believe that we all live and as biological (not spiritual creatures with souls) we all will die and our bodies will decay.

That is all. There is no heaven, hell, or eternal life nor a god who will reign over the saved etc. I find reality much more inspiring and refreshing than the flights of fantasy provided by religious beliefs.


Metacrock:...If you are alive you are a soul. If you have a mind you have a spirit. The soul is a metaphor for life in relation to God. The mind is a form of spirit. God is the basis of reality. To deny God is to cling to the surface level of exist4ence only. To find God is to fine being has depth.

Joe Hinman said...

Chatpilot:..."That is all. There is no heaven, hell, or eternal life nor a god who will reign over the saved etc. I find reality much more inspiring and refreshing than the flights of fantasy provided by religious beliefs. "

Metacrock:...I don't know hat heaven is like but it is real an d it is presence with God. Hell is a metaphor for spiritual death. God is reality, reality is the depth of being. You blind folded you8r self and you sit with your back to the sunset saying :there is no sunset this wall is fascinating.

Chatpilot said...

Metacrock said: It has not been established that we did have similar experiences?

Reading yiur testimony regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit it is exactly what I felt in my being when I had that same experience. In fact, whenever I felt the so called presence of God it came in the form of what seemed like a presence and electrical currents flowing through my body. Often when I prayed over people I would be able to direct the current which I believed at the time was the Spirit flowing through me to the afflicted person.

Meta: I could never deny the experiences I've had. Even when I have been disillusioned and disappointed and angry at God I could not deny that something real is there that i experienced.

I did not deny them for the reasons you cite but I could not leave those former beliefs behind without first explaining away those experiences. I knew that they would nag at me in the future so I did my research and dealt with them as soon as possible. I have come to satisfactory explanations for those experiences and have no need to come back to those delusional beliefs.

I find happiness in life and believe that you only live once. I don't drink, smoke, or harm others. I find joy in spending time with those I love and sharing both my joys and sorrows with them. I don't need gods for comfort or strength when I have all of those things within me. I think your unwillingness to examine your experiences objectively and critically is your stumbling block.

Finally, your claims to disprove the biochemical reactions in the brain vs. SN experiences is just that claims. I don't believe in the validity of the so called M scale that you so ardently defend. Your citing theists of the past whose authority does not extend past their beliefs is proof of nothing.

Joe Hinman said...

Metacrock said:... It has not been established that we did have similar experiences?

Chatpilot:... Reading your testimony regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit it is exactly what I felt in my being when I had that same experience. In fact, whenever I felt the so called presence of God it came in the form of what seemed like a presence and electrical currents flowing through my body. Often when I prayed over people I would be able to direct the current which I believed at the time was the Spirit flowing through me to the afflicted person.

Metacrock:...I didn't argue that your experiences weren't real. Perhaps they were, not for me to say,. But I can't deny the reality of mine and fear is not right, you should not seek God out of fear. The fact of falling away is not a disproof of the faith.


Metacrock said:... I could never deny the experiences I've had. Even when I have been disillusioned and disappointed and angry at God I could not deny that something real is there that i experienced.

Chatpilot:... I did not deny them for the reasons you cite but I could not leave those former beliefs behind without first explaining away those experiences. I knew that they would nag at me in the future so I did my research and dealt with them as soon as possible. I have come to satisfactory explanations for those experiences and have no need to come back to those delusional beliefs.

Metacrock:... your research is disproved by the body of data in the literature.Read the book. It's in the side bar, Trace of God.

Chatpiolt:... I find happiness in life and believe that you only live once. I don't drink, smoke, or harm others. I find joy in spending time with those I love and sharing both my joys and sorrows with them. I don't need gods for comfort or strength when I have all of those things within me. I think your unwillingness to examine your experiences objectively and critically is your stumbling block.

Metacrock:... I researched 200 studies, talked several of the major researchers, became friends withy one and spent five years researching. It's ludicrous to say that I haven't looked at them objectively. You are afraid to even read obne book.Will you read even one article? here is an article summarizing my major research.


Chatpilot... your claims to disprove the biochemical reactions in the brain vs. SN experiences is just that claims.

Metacrock:...They are claims backed up by research, where's your research?



Chatpilot:...... I don't believe in the validity of the so called M scale that you so ardently defend.

Metacrock:...what have you read about it? Are you willing to even read one source?...

Chatpilot:...... Your citing theists of the past whose authority does not extend past their beliefs is proof of nothing.

Metacrock:...Every single one od those 200 studies is by an academic a professor of either psychology, sociology, anthropology or some such discipline. I don't know if any are Christians or theists but I know several are atheists. The inventor of the m scale Dr. Hood is a believer in some form of God but not a Christian. All the studies are peer reviewed and published in academic journals. all of them use scientific methods from double blind clinical studies to multiple regression anjalysis....

JBsptfn said...

ChatPilot, a flash of light across a synapse in the brain is not the same as the thought "I want to eat Pizza". They are two different things, both qualitatively and quantitatively different.

And, I had my own fears about four years ago, and I almost abandoned the Christian faith. However, God blessed me with good teachers and information sources, like Arnold Murray of Shepherd's Chapel, Joe Hinman's blogs, and also J.P. Holding's sources.

I will continue to pray for you. After reading your blog and this argument, you seem very confused.

Joe Hinman said...

I am honored man. really thanks. I also want pizza!

Chatpilot said...

@JBsptfn not confused at all my friend. I am more lucid now than I have ever been as a believer.

@Joe Hinman I have read your article on the M scale and the only thing that that proves is that many people across cultures have similar experiences. Not that the Christian God is real nor that any god is real for that matter. It definitely does not defeat the argument that these experiences are superior to that of the brain states as causes of these experiences themselves. The M scale is nothing more than a queestioneer or survey of people claiming to have had mystical experiences. That is it! It is not scientific at all in fact I would go as far as calling this research pseudo-science and not actual science at all.

The fact that in some cases these experiences turn out to be life changing does not prove that God was behind it. NDE's for instance have the same effect on people and often some people need to be shocked into reality by such experiences to realize that they need to make some changes in their lives quickly if they value life at all.

One of my neighbors nearly died of a drug overdose. She was found on the brink of death and was in a coma for a few weeks. When she came back from the hospital she stopped using drugs and drinking altogether. I don't think it was god she just had a scare that made her take a closer look at her life and what was important to her. I myself have been an alcoholic for many years and one day I just decided it wasn't worth it and quit cold turkey without god or some mystical experience. My point is that a little self reflection goes a long way.

Chatpilot said...

Seriously speaking this is yet another waste of time. You are obviously convinced that you have found the "truth." I on the other hand don't believe in the validity of so called mystical experiences as evidence for the existence of God or gods of any kind. We are obviously on two different sides of the fence and I can tell you right now that there is no way that you will ever be able to convince me of the truth of your findings with a book and your assertions based on your being convinced by other individuals subjective experiences and bad research and interpretations of that research. I don't know how much more we can say on this issue.

You ask me where is my research. I have plenty but I am sure that you will just continue to force your beliefs upon them and ignore their validity. I graciously bow out of this discussion since I can see that it is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Joe Hinman said...

Chatpilot:...Seriously speaking this is yet another waste of time. You are obviously convinced that you have found the "truth." I on the other hand don't believe in the validity of so called mystical experiences as evidence for the existence of God or gods of any kind.

Metacrock:...You don't even know what the argument says. Hey better not look through the telescope it's probably a trick. There can't be mountains on the moon it's too perfect because its a heavenly body. Ho do you explain the fact that there is such a strong correlation between having those experiences and getting your life online?


Chatpilot:...We are obviously on two different sides of the fence and I can tell you right now that there is no way that you will ever be able to convince me of the truth of your findings with a book and your assertions based on your being convinced by other individuals subjective experiences and bad research and interpretations of that research. I don't know how much more we can say on this issue.

Metacrock:...that\'s ok except you are actively trying to proselytize for unbelief and you intimate that my reasons are based on upon some sort of empty emotionalism because you can't except the fact that I have the evidence of science overwhelmingly on my side.


Chatpilot:...You ask me where is my research. I have plenty but I am sure that you will just continue to force your beliefs upon them and ignore their validity. I graciously bow out of this discussion since I can see that it is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Metacrock:...I put my evidence on the table.where is yours?

Joe Hinman said...

Chatpilot: @Joe Hinman I have read your article on the M scale and the only thing that that proves is that many people across cultures have similar experiences.

Metacrock: You keep ignoring the fact that religious ideas are culturally bound, so the experiences should not be the dame. At the very least that proves archetypes. No theory explains why the archetypes would make your life dramatically better. That indicates an objective reality and you can't handle the truth. you fear hell.


Chatpilot:
Not that the Christian God is real nor that any god is real for that matter. It definitely does not defeat the argument that these experiences are superior to that of the brain states as causes of these experiences themselves.

Metacrock: The research that you allude to does not use a control for religious experience. That means that can't prove their argument! they have no way of proving that they produced religious experiences in the lab.



Chatpilot: The M scale is nothing more than a queestioneer or survey of people claiming to have had mystical experiences. That is it! It is not scientific at all in fact I would go as far as calling this research pseudo-science and not actual science at all.

Metacrock: Questionnaires are the standard method in sociology and psychology, 80% of what they do. Questionnaires are scientific , why do you think they call sociology and psychology "social sciences?" Of course I know the M scale is a survey if you read that article (you did not) you would know why being a survey doesn't make it any less scientific and why it proves my argument.


Joe Hinman said...

Chatpilot: The fact that in some cases these experiences turn out to be life changing does not prove that God was behind it. NDE's for instance have the same effect on people and often some people need to be shocked into reality by such experiences to realize that they need to make some changes in their lives quickly if they value life at all.

Metacrock: Not in "some cases" in 80% there's a very strong correlation between having the experience and life transformation. It's not Shocking" it's nice, it's super sense of being loved. It's super peaceful. Nowhere in the lit is it ever correlated with being shocked.

Chatpilot: One of my neighbors nearly died of a drug overdose. She was found on the brink of death and was in a coma for a few weeks. When she came back from the hospital she stopped using drugs and drinking altogether. I don't think it was god she just had a scare that made her take a closer look at her life and what was important to her. I myself have been an alcoholic for many years and one day I just decided it wasn't worth it and quit cold turkey without god or some mystical experience. My point is that a little self reflection goes a long way.

Metacrock: It seems you can only relate to God through shocking and making one afraid. That's totally antithetical to the experience. You tried to say you had the experiences I describe, I sure did not describe them like that.


Araham Maslow, an atheist and major sociologist and psychologist, says of the experience: "The question has to be differentiated still further. There is no doubt that great insights and revelations are profoundly felt in mystic or peak-experiences, and certainly some of these are, ipso facto, intrinsically valid as experiences. That is, one can and does learn from such experiences that, e.g., joy, ecstasy, and rapture do in fact exist and that they are in principle available for the experiencer, even if they never have been before. Thus the peaker learns surely and certainly that life can be worthwhile, that it can be beautiful and valuable. There are ends in life, i.e., experiences which are so precious in themselves as to prove that not everything is a means to some end other than itself."

"...My feeling is that if it were never to happen again, the power of the experience could permanently affect the attitude toward life. A single glimpse of heaven is enough to confirm its existence even if it is never experienced again. It is my strong suspicion that even one such experience might be able to prevent suicide, for instance, and perhaps many varieties of slow self-destruction, e.g., alcoholism, drug-addiction, addiction to violence, etc. I would guess also, on theoretical grounds, that peak-experiences might very well abort "existential meaninglessness," states of valuelessness, etc., at least occasionally. (These deductions from the nature of intense peak-experiences are given some support by general experience with LSD and psilocybin. Of course these preliminary reports also await confirmation. )... ...This then is one kind of peak-knowledge of whose validity and usefulness there can be no doubt, any more than there could be with discovering for the first time that the color "red" exists and is wonderful. Joy exists, can be experienced and feels very good indeed, and one can always hope that it will be experienced again...."

See it's all positive

JBsptfn said...

Good try with him, Meta. I prayed for him today.

After reading this dialogue, and the dialogue with Phoenix that I copied on Atheism-Analyzed, this guy doesn't seem very intellectually responsible in his Atheistic beliefs. He has a bunch of assertions, but he doesn't back them up with facts.

Joe Hinman said...

guess he's not willing to face the evidence. He's trying turn people away from God but Can't deal with the facts.

JBsptfn said...

It's sad. On one of his posts, someone recommended sites like Evilbible.com and WhywontGodhealamputees.com. That site may be nothing but an echo chamber, and he may be a little annoyed that we interrupted that.

Joe Hinman said...

he ran away at the first sign of argument. I don't think he expected to find Christians who can read.