Monday, February 06, 2017

Apologetocs vs Science, argument vs. fact



Photobucket

I am trying to get more recognition to my stationary website The Religious a pirori. this article is from the science section, found under the science tab on nav bar. I have q lot of great article written for apologetoics and theology that deal with science, URL.

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2009/04/scientific-and-social-index.html

Please use this resource for all your apologetocal needs,

Atheists often set up that dichotomy in response to God arguments: apologetic = argument, science = fact. But argumemt plays a major role in science as well. I am not saying that scientific facts are merry arguments, but argument plays a much ore important role in the makimng of fact and in applying facts to generate new theory than is often realized. Apologetocs extrapolates from fact to produce argument,both processes entail a dialectic of fact and argument.


Sample article which is entitled "Scientist Extrapolate form Data to Make Arguments":

this is in direct response to the atheist mantra that "we don't want arguments we only want facts." Science is always extrapolating form facts to argue for conclusions not empirically factual. there are many examples.

(1) Fist example: the Neutrino

Jesús Mosterín, Institute of Philosophy, CSIC, Madrid

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue1/mosterin.htm


"The whole body of empirical science is built on observations. However intuitively appealing and mathematically educated our theories may be, they only enter the domain of standard empirical science when tested, checked, and confronted with external reality through the means of observations. The entities and facts we talk about in empirical science must have some detectable effects; they must knock at our door (however softly). That makes the big difference between the particles which have been detected (however indirectly), like electrons, or even quarks or W bosons, and the (up to now) purely speculative particles, undetected by any account, like Higgs bosons, photinos or superstrings. "


that says point blank that they have undetected particles. their existence is assumed in relation to theory and the effects upon known particles. that's the kind of answer Mat was trying to give. what Mat can't get through his head is that I can say the same thing about my God arguments.


Here's another one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

"astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that neither emits nor scatters light or other electromagnetic radiation, and so cannot be directly detected via optical or radio astronomy.[1] Its existence is inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter and gravitational lensing of background radiationand was originally hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and calculations based on the mass of the visible "luminous" matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstellar and intergalactic medium. Many experiments to detect dark matter through non-gravitational means are underway."


do you see what that says? "it's existence is inferred." do you understand that? it means no direct empathetical evince.

More Neutrino evdience:

Timeline on Neutrinos
"History of the Neutrinos"

1898
Discovery of the radioactivity
The first car's races (70 km/h maximum!)
1926
Problem with beta radioactivity
Between two wars, people dance the Charleston and the Boston
1930
Pauli invents the neutrino particle
Crisis of 1929...
1933
Fermi baptizes the neutrino and builds his theory of weak interaction
Hitler gets power in Germany
1956
First discovery of the neutrino by an experiment nue
Riots in Budapest. Indochina. Cold war. Atmospheric tests of thermonuclear bombs.
They were talking about them and theorizing and from the 1930s they didn't have a direct proof of them until 1956. For 30 years they did not have direct proof but they still assumed they could exist. They had reason to. But I have reason to assume God exists.

Atheists have argued on this point "but we can trust the inference." I'm saying yes we can but I also make the kind of inference for God and that can be trusted too for the same reasons. That's true but it also means we can trust inferences on god arguments if they done correctly.


a more detailed account:
Neutrino History:
From what we know today, misters Neutrinos were born around 15 billions years ago, soon after the the birth of the universe. Since this time, the universe has continuously expanded, cooled and neutrinos have made their own way. Theoretically, they are now many and constitute a cosmic background radiation whose temperature is 1.9 degree Kelvin (-271.2 degree Celsius). The other neutrinos of the universe are produced during the life of stars and the explosion of supernovae.But the idea of the neutrino came to life only in 1930, when Wolfgang PAULI tried a desperate saving operation of "the energy conservation principle". The 4th of December 1930, invited at a physicists workshop in Tubingen, he sends to his colleagues a strange letter...
In February 1932, J. Chadwick discovers the neutron, but neutrons are heavy and do not correspond to the particle imagined by Pauli.
At Solvay conference in Bruxelles, in October 1933, Pauli says, speaking about his particles:
"... their mass can not be very much more than the electron mass. In order to distinguish them from heavy neutrons, mister Fermi has proposed to name them "neutrinos". It is possible that the proper mass of neutrinos be zero... It seems to me plausible that neutrinos have a spin 1/2... We know nothing about the interaction of neutrinos with the other particles of matter and with photons: the hypothesis that they have a magnetic moment seems to me not funded at all."
In 1933, F. Perrin shows that the neutrino mass has to be very much lower than the electron mass. The same year, Anderson discovers the positron, the first seen particle of anti-matter, verifying thus the theory of P.A.M. Dirac and confirming the idea of neutrino in the minds of Pauli and Fermi. End of 1933, while Frederic Joliot-Curie discovers the beta plus radioactivity (a positron is emitted instead of an electron), Enrico Fermi takes the neutrino hypothesis and builds his theory of beta decay (weak interaction).
[ Since this time, physicists have made a lot of progress in the understanding of weak interaction and we now speak about protons and neutrons, composed of three quarks each. One of the quarks of the neutron transforms into an one, producing the emission of a W boson, which decays into an electron and an anti-neutrino ]
The neutrino quest begins, but people had to be quite reckless and persevering in those years because, as soon as 1934, Hans Bethe and Rudolf Peierls showed that the cross section (probability of interaction) between neutrinos and matter should be extremely small: billions of time smaller than the one of an electron. This particle interacts so weakly with matter that it can go through the whole earth without deviation.


uest of the inaccessible star (1935-1956)

Until the end of the forties, physicists try to measure the recoil of a nucleus during its beta decay. All the measurements are compatible with the hypothesis of only one neutrino emitted with the electron. But no direct observation of neutrino seems feasible, since its predicted probability of interaction is too weak for any feasible experiment: a very abundant source of neutrinos and a very sensitive and huge heavy detector are needed. In 1939, Luis Alvarez shows that tritium is radioactive. Until today, beta decay of tritium has been used to give the best limit on the neutrino mass.In 1945, the first atomic bomb explodes. Despite of the horror it inspires, it is for the physicists a remarkable powerful source of neutrinos. Frederick Reines, who is working at Los Alamos, speaks to Fermi in 1951 about his project to place a neutrino detector near an atomic explosion. In 1952, he meets Clyde Cowan and they finally agree to use a more "pacific" source of neutrinos: the nuclear plant of Hanford, Washington.
The detector is quickly built. Their experiment is proposed in February 1953, realized in spring and their results come out during the summer 1953. But the signal is not convincing. They do again their experiment in 1956, more carefully and this time near the nuclear plant of Savannah River, South Carolina. The improvements made, especially do decrease the background signal, give them the jack pot! The neutrino is here. Its tag is clearly visible in the detector, well above the backgrounds like cosmic radiation signals.

[ Near the same nuclear plant, other physicists, like Luis Alvarez or Ray Davis, had tried to detect neutrinos using carbonate chloride solutions, where chlore should have transform into radioative argon under the interaction with a neutrino. Unfortunately for them, a nuclear plant delivers only anti-neutrinos! ]
Reines and Cowan experiment principle consisted in using a target made of around 400 liters of a mixture of water and cadmium chloride. The anti-neutrino coming from the nuclear reactor interacts with a proton of the target matter, giving a positron and a neutron. The positron annihilates with an electron of the surrounding material, giving two simultaneous photons and the neutron slows down until it is eventually captured by a cadmium nucleus, implying the emission of photons some 15 microseconds after those of the positron annihilation. All those photons are detected and the 15 microseconds identify the neutrino interaction.



(2) Second Example: Smoking causes cancer.

We went 40 years without knowing the mechanism for smoking causing cancer but we acted on the fact of a very tight correlation by itself. (
Website “Cancer Research UK,” URL http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/, “Smoking and Cancer” visited March, 24, 2009.

Thanks to years of research, the links between smoking and cancer are now very clear. Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world, and accounts for one in four UK cancer deaths.In the UK, smoking kills five times more people than road accidents, overdoses, murder, suicide and HIV all put together.
Thanks to years of research, the links between smoking and cancer are now very clear. Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer in the world, and accounts for one in four UK cancer deaths.In the UK, smoking kills five times more people than road accidents, overdoses, murder, suicide and HIV all put together.


Smoking causes nine in ten cases of lung cancer. Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival rates of all cancers, and is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. The good news is that most of these deaths are preventable, by giving up smoking in time.
Smoking also increases the risk of over a dozen other cancers including cancers of the mouthlarynx (voice box), pharynx (upper throat), nose and sinuses, oesophagus (food pipe), liverpancreasstomachkidneybladdercervix and bowel, as well as one type of ovarian cancer and some types of leukaemia. There is also some evidence that smoking could increase the risk of breast cancer.






it's claim none of you are willing to face. 

that second quote is also interesting because it points out what I said before about neutrinos were originally hypothesized without any proof of them based upon the need to assume they exist.

that's the basis of my God arguments.

80 comments:

im-skeptical said...

Atheists often set up that dichotomy in response to God arguments: apologetic = argument, science = fact.

... the atheist mantra that "we don't want arguments we only want facts."



Joe,

Perhaps if you knew a little more about science, you wouldn't be trying so hard to convince atheists of things they already understand. Facts are observed evidence or data. Anything beyond that is arguments about how to interpret the facts. That is true of every scientific theory, WHICH WE KNOW IS TENTATIVE. It is also true that every religious argument does not constitute evidence for belief. Evidence consists of facts, and arguments are ways of interpreting and explaining the facts.

You act as if you have some great scientific knowledge that eludes us mere mortals. You keep talking about your "fortress of facts", and harping about how science doesn't prove things. Yes, we know. You don't have to pretend that you have this secret knowledge and the rest of us don't. We don't need you scolding us about it. Your "fortress of facts" is nothing but a myth, and you would know that if you understood scientific thinking a little better.

It is also not the case that we demand to directly witness something before we believe it. If you understood anything about science, you would know that we don't directly witness ANYTHING. Your little story about neutrinos is great (honestly, anyone can google a story like that), but the fact is that we don't directly see photons, or electrons, or even trees. We infer everything. If we look at a tree, we experience not the tree directly, because it never touches us, but light bouncing off it that enters out eyes and causes a stimulation of nerves that goes to our brain, where it is INTERPRETED as the sensation of a tree. Everything that we say we "know" is actually an inference. and if you understood science better, you would realize this, and not try to lecture the rest of us on what we already know.

It's the unscientific thinkers, and especially theistic thinkers - not atheists, who harbor these delusions about reality - that arguments are evidence, or that things can be known directly and without inference. Save your exhortations for them.

im-skeptical said...

that second quote is also interesting because it points out what I said before about neutrinos were originally hypothesized without any proof of them based upon the need to assume they exist.

The difference between your God hypothesis and a real scientific hypothesis is vast. Your "need to assume" the existence of God is purely emotional. It is absolutely NOT that God is the only reasonable way, or even the BEST way to explain observed facts. If that were the case, then science would arrive at the same conclusion, but it DOESN'T. Why doesn't science agree with your hypothesis? It's not because of some imaginary bias against truth. It's because there are BETTER ways of explaining what we observe.

Joe Hinman said...

I was a Ph.d. candidate in history of ideas at university Texas at Dallas for 10 year and studied history of and philosophy of science. I had 4.0 for 5 years it came down slightly when I had to study French. I don't know what Skpetical's background is but i'm sue he's never been to radiate school and IO wonder if he's been to college, It seems that most of his knowledge of science comes from atheist websites. After challenging him repeatedly he's never told where he did his doctrinal work. I assume he didn't do any.
It's the real mark of ideologue to assume that if you do't agree with him you know nothing about the field. That goes along with their view science is the only form of knowledge, then their understanding of science the only form of science.

Joe Hinman said...

You act as if you have some great scientific knowledge that eludes us mere mortals.

I have Ph.D. level understanding of history and philosophy of science as it Persians to 17-18th century sounding Newton and Boyle,and the modern literatire around those thinkers and around Kuhn, Popper and Shappin and Shaffer,

You keep talking about your "fortress of facts", and harping about how science doesn't prove things.


No it's the atheist's fortress of facts can't you follow a simple argument? That's another thing Skepie does he wont read more than the first line of an article,

Yes, we know. You don't have to pretend that you have this secret knowledge and the rest of us don't. We don't need you scolding us about it. Your "fortress of facts" is nothing but a myth, and you would know that if you understood scientific thinking a little better.

Yes it's secret unless you join a doctoral program in history of ideas in the University of Texas System, Provided you make it through secret Texas initiation where you must pet the dreaded creature known as "Bevo!" then you are allowed to read Kuhn.



Joe Hinman said...

It is also not the case that we demand to directly witness something before we believe it. If you understood anything about science, you would know that we don't directly witness ANYTHING.

that would be obvious from the account I gave of the history of neutrino, but see he doesn't read past the first line so he can't know that. In the article I did on cadre last week I put in the middle of the article the phrase Skpeie's mother splits her infinitives he never responded, proof he didn't read it.


Your little story about neutrinos is great (honestly, anyone can google a story like that),

what a stupid thing to say did I claim that i have some special knowledge no one can have? It's research bumbass, something we historians do a lot. apparently you don't know bout it.

but the fact is that we don't directly see photons, or electrons, or even trees. We infer everything. If we look at a tree, we experience not the tree directly, because it never touches us, but light bouncing off it that enters out eyes and causes a stimulation of nerves that goes to our brain, where it is INTERPRETED as the sensation of a tree. Everything that we say we "know" is actually an inference. and if you understood science better, you would realize this, and not try to lecture the rest of us on what we already know.

not Germain to any point I was making, actually the skpetster is. He's arguing, that;s was the point I made wasn't it> science has to argue, So the atheist demand for factgs rather than argument is Bulshit. Nothing the Skepster has said so far changes taht

It's the unscientific thinkers, and especially theistic thinkers - not atheists, who harbor these delusions about reality - that arguments are evidence, or that things can be known directly and without inference. Save your exhortations for them.

ah you see he really understand the issue does he? why? because he didn't read the piece. My argument is the demand for facts rather than arguments is misguided because argument is necessary in any interpretation off facts, no less in science. He starts out implying that it's obvious that science does argue people who know science know that; but he turns around and demands facts and eschews argument after making arguments.

im-skeptical said...

I have Ph.D. level ... bla bla bla
- You don't know squat about science. PERIOD.

No it's the atheist's fortress of facts can't you follow a simple argument?
- Can't you read? It's YOUR straw man. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

Yes it's secret unless you join a doctoral program in history of ideas
- History of ideas? I repeat: You don't know squat about science. PERIOD.

that would be obvious from the account I gave of the history of neutrino
- No, it wouldn't, because the article doesn't say that. But what would you know about it? All you do is quote these things. you don't actually know what they're saying.

In the article I did on cadre last week I put in the middle of the article the phrase Skpeie's mother splits her infinitives he never responded, proof he didn't read it.
- No, you didn't say that in anything I read. i do recall, however that you said this: "are you reading this Skeptie. if you see this let me know,". Doesn't mean I have to respond. You didn't even understand what I was saying in the first place. That whole article was based on a total failure to understand what I said.

what a stupid thing to say did I claim that i have some special knowledge no one can have? It's research bumbass, something we historians do a lot. apparently you don't know bout it.
- Googling an article about science that you don't understand is not "research".

So the atheist demand for factgs rather than argument is Bulshit.
- Yes, it's bullshit because you made it up. You don't understand what I'm saying to you, Joe. We don't reject arguments and demand only fact. The arguments we reject are arguments that are not BASED ON fact. You know, like your religious arguments for God.

My argument is the demand for facts rather than arguments is misguided because argument is necessary in any interpretation off facts, no less in science
- And my argument, if you would bother to read and understand it, is that we DON'T just demand facts instead of argument. Go back and read what I said.

Joe Hinman said...

I have Ph.D. level ... bla bla bla

- You don't know squat about science. PERIOD.

you are uneducated,your views on science are adolescent,

No it's the atheist's fortress of facts can't you follow a simple argument?

- Can't you read? It's YOUR straw man. THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

bull shit, of course there is you use it all the time, You just used it in eokimng your trump-like imaginary knowledge of science.

notice how they always have to make it a contest over who knows the most about science if you disagree with them that;s sure sign you dont' have the blessings of the priesthood of knowledge,


Yes it's secret unless you join a doctoral program in history of ideas


- History of ideas? I repeat: You don't know squat about science. PERIOD.

he doesn't even that's an academic discipline and that it's quite common for people in it to study science, he's illiterate academically, he's never been to graduate school totally unread all the knowledge he has comes from atheist websites so it's totally self referential.


that would be obvious from the account I gave of the history of neutrino

- No, it wouldn't, because the article doesn't say that. But what would you know about it? All you do is quote these things. you don't actually know what they're saying.

it was several articles I cited and yes it shows if you followed the history I traced because it hows the concept of neutrino being shaped through argument, you did not readitLike isaid youdon't kjnow cause you did not readit,

you already agreed with my major premise so you have no argument,


In the article I did on cadre last week I put in the middle of the article the phrase Skpeie's mother splits her infinitives he never responded, proof he didn't read it.

- No, you didn't say that in anything I read. i do recall, however that you said this: "are you reading this Skeptie. if you see this let me know,". Doesn't mean I have to respond. You didn't even understand what I was saying in the first place. That whole article was based on a total failure to understand what I said.

you went and looked

what a stupid thing to say did I claim that i have some special knowledge no one can have? It's research bumbass, something we historians do a lot. apparently you don't know bout it.

- Googling an article about science that you don't understand is not "research".

sure as hell is. there all kinds of research literature search is common in social sciences, you don't know anything, you are totally ignorant, Besides it is one researches in debate.

So the atheist demand for factgs rather than argument is Bulshit.

- Yes, it's bullshit because you made it up. You don't understand what I'm saying to you, Joe. We don't reject arguments and demand only fact. The arguments we reject are arguments that are not BASED ON fact. You know, like your religious arguments for God.

you yourself have de that dichotomy. I've argued with thousands of atheists aI;ve done over half a million posts in the 17 years I've been doing this and I've it thousands of times,


My argument is the demand for facts rather than arguments is misguided because argument is necessary in any interpretation off facts, no less in science


- And my argument, if you would bother to read and understand it, is that we DON'T just demand facts instead of argument. Go back and read what I said.

most atheists on message boards seem unaware of the use argument in science,

Stardusty Psyche said...

" I've argued with thousands of atheists aI;ve done over half a million posts in the 17 years I've been doing this and I've it thousands of times,"
Perhaps, but based on this post you have yet to develop the art of concision.

",both processes entail a dialectic of fact and argument."
That sounds like you are going for a (false) equivalency.

Most of what passes for "facts" in popular apologetics is muddled perception, superstition, or ancient mythology.

There has never been a sound argument for god published into general circulation.

Joe Hinman said...

Most of what passes for "facts" in popular apologetics is muddled perception, superstition, or ancient mythology.

I don't do popular, You are arguing with me here noit all those other apologists who aren;t here.

There has never been a sound argument for god published into general circulation.

Last time you said that I kicked your ass up one side of Reppert's blgo and down the other, On the modal argument, The modal argument is a sound argument,

moreover my arguments in Trace of God are sound,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" Last time you said that I kicked your ass up one side of Reppert's blgo and down the other,"
Ha Ha Ha, you substituted your word "valid" instead of my word "sound" twice, then swatted that strawman,

You kicked a strawman's ass, twice, mine was untouched by your silly word substitution.


" On the modal argument, The modal argument is a sound argument,"
Tee hee hee.

Your "argument" suffers from the non-sequitur that a logical necessity dictates an existential necessity, and is thus unsound.


6:13 AM

Anonymous said...

I actually have a Ph.D., and it is in science, and im-skeptical is absolutely right. This idea that science does not use argumentation, or that they think they do not, is complete nonsense.

Pix

Joe Hinman said...

nonymous said...
I actually have a Ph.D., and it is in science, and im-skeptical is absolutely right. This idea that science does not use argumentation, or that they think they do not, is complete nonsense.


I know you have a Ph,D in a pseudo science, that phony chemistry thing, I am joking, I don't see how you got it because your reading comprehension sux. You just characterized my view as the opposite of what it is. My argument is that SCIENCE DOES USE ARGUMENTS no way you could miss that if you paid attention,,

Joe Hinman said...

the opening paragraph of my peoce says:

"Atheists often set up that dichotomy in response to God arguments: apologetic = argument, science = fact. But argumemt plays a major role in science as well."

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

But argumemt plays a major role in science as well.

Yes Joe. We get it. And my question to you was: What makes you think you possess this great secret that eludes mere mortals? Your "fortress of facts" is just a straw man.

I would have much more respect for insights like that on your part if you also showed that you have some understanding of the scientific information you cite. But time after time, you show that you don't get what it's saying.

And then there's your 200 studies. You draw inferences from these that are not scientifically justified. There is no causal linkage demonstrated between God and the observed evidence seen in these studies. A correlation between two different phenomena does not demonstrate the kind of causation you suppose. And a better understanding of the logical processes involved in science would tell you that. This isn't theism. In science, the logic has to be valid, or it doesn't work.

Joe Hinman said...

Yes Joe. We get it. And my question to you was: What makes you think you possess this great secret that eludes mere mortals? Your "fortress of facts" is just a straw man.

as I said before, get it through your head now, I have argued with thousands of atheists and I see that fortress of facts thinking at work in almost everything they sways you yourself have used it recently. They all do, except the philosophers. It can't be a strqaw man if they all use it,

I would have much more respect for insights like that on your part if you also showed that you have some understanding of the scientific information you cite. But time after time, you show that you don't get what it's saying.

that's just bull shit, you don[t know much about science in terms of history or philosophy, you don't understand the implications of the thing you say but you knowing science means being anti-religious. Here we are talking about philosophy of religion and theology, so science for science's sake doesn't come i t it But give me an example because you don't have one that makes sense,

And then there's your 200 studies. You draw inferences from these that are not scientifically justified. There is no causal linkage demonstrated between God and the observed evidence seen in these studies.

no causal links are ever observed. Read Hume! you don't know the basics, All causal inferences are deduced from correlation and the assumption of a mechanism. I have demonstrated those over and over again. The correlation between positive life transformation and religious experience is super tight. the thing is you don't loisten and you donm't read.


A correlation between two different phenomena does not demonstrate the kind of causation you suppose.


all causation is essentially assumed from correlation you can't give me an example of observation of causes at work. Then the assumption of mechanism is also based upon correlation.


look at the history of neutrinos that I sketched out, give me a counter example.


And a better understanding of the logical processes involved in science would tell you that. This isn't theism. In science, the logic has to be valid, or it doesn't work.

Joe Hinman said...

you equate the acceptance of certain philosophical positions with knowledge of science.

im-skeptical said...

All causal inferences are deduced from correlation and the assumption of a mechanism

Yes, Joe. In a certain philosophical sense, we have to assume causation from correlation. But there has to be some good reason for assuming a causal mechanism.

If I observe that someone is healthy and he has a spiritual experience, what basis is there to say that God did it? Maybe being healthy causes people to have more experiences like that, or maybe some other factor causes both of those things. There's plenty of information in your studies (such as the same effects correlated with non-spiritual peak experiences) that would discount the conclusions you draw from them, but your refusal to look at all the available data objectively prevents you from seeing the bigger picture. You are not taking a scientific view of the data, but you are claiming scientific evidence for your conclusions.

Joe Hinman said...

Yes, Joe. In a certain philosophical sense, we have to assume causation from correlation. But there has to be some good reason for assuming a causal mechanism.

philosophy determines everything about science. That's why I said Philosophy still owns science, that philosophical sense is paramount.

One reason for for assuming God is the content of the experiences. The experiences themselves give themselves out to be experiences of God, or the equivalent.


If I observe that someone is healthy and he has a spiritual experience, what basis is there to say that God did it?

that is a straw an because it's not the way my arguments work, you are creating your own example which is loaded in your favor,

Maybe being healthy causes people to have more experiences like that, or maybe some other factor causes both of those things. There's plenty of information in your studies (such as the same effects correlated with non-spiritual peak experiences) that would discount the conclusions you draw from them,


NoI already answered that several times,Hood found that the experiences are the same the explanations of their meaning drawn upon the mystic's own personal doctrine but the experiences are all the same, and even those who did not connect then to God reacted to them in a way similar to the God believers.

but your refusal to look at all the available data objectively prevents you from seeing the bigger picture. You are not taking a scientific view of the data, but you are claiming scientific evidence for your conclusions.


what I just said proves that looked at it objectivity and taht you don't listen I've explained this to you several times.

Joe Hinman said...

stop ignoring the answers. you have these prejudices that you it has to be a certain way you refuse to accept that it could be other no matter what the data shows,

im-skeptical said...

that is a straw an because it's not the way my arguments work, you are creating your own example which is loaded in your favor,

Your argument said that since the mystical experience is ABOUT the divine, then it is an experience OF the divine. That's bad logic. It is not true at all.

Joe Hinman said...

the Wednesday's post was about your statment that I don't show causal links to my arguments, try to keep up.

The statemt about straw man was percipotated by this:

"If I observe that someone is healthy and he has a spiritual experience, what basis is there to say that God did it?"

I said my argument doesn't work just by saying someone is healthy had has a spiritual experience so he's just be made healthy by the experience," The studies actually show that the experiencers themselves attribute their improved state to the experience,, it came artier the experience. That's not the only short coming in your argument but it;s major,

then you say: "Your argument said that since the mystical experience is ABOUT the divine, then it is an experience OF the divine. That's bad logic. It is not true at all."


you are rearranging the pieces of the argument to make it fit your narrative, when you do that you take it out of context that is not at all a valid way to argue. You have to keep the premise in the proper order so it can shown that they flow logically from each other.
My argument does not just say the content is about the divine so it must be caused by the divine, That;s part of it but that is part of the warrant for asserting cause ,it;s a valid warrant,

It's prime facie reason to assume divine cause you must show why it's not valid. But the argument doesn't turn on that alone, The improved state is directly linked to the expeirence by the experiencers themselves, thus i'ts part of he warrant because the experience is real so the cause is real,

Stardusty Psyche said...

im-skeptical said...

Joe "that is a straw an because it's not the way my arguments work, you are creating your own example which is loaded in your favor,"

Skep "Your argument said that since the mystical experience is ABOUT the divine, then it is an experience OF the divine. That's bad logic. It is not true at all."

Skep, like all theists I have encountered Joe does not know the difference between imagining a thing and that thing being real.

Joe suffers from the ongoing non-sequitur of believing that a logical possibility necessitates an existential possibility. That is how he fails in his modal argument, and we see here another such failure of Joe to differentiate a thought from that imagined reality.

In the mind of the ontological theist wishing makes it so.


5:46 PM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" the experience is real so the cause is real,"

Joe, you suffer from a diminished capacity to differentiate fantasy from reality.

An experience is a brain process. A brain process might be a representation of an outside reality or it might be an internal feedback path that does not represent an outside reality.


9:38 PM

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...

Joe "that is a straw an because it's not the way my arguments work, you are creating your own example which is loaded in your favor,"

Skep "Your argument said that since the mystical experience is ABOUT the divine, then it is an experience OF the divine. That's bad logic. It is not true at all."

Skep, like all theists I have encountered Joe does not know the difference between imagining a thing and that thing being real.

you have no idea what yo are talking about, my arguments are just far over year head,I answered that statement of his and you need back and read my answer and thunk about it. Besides asserting my belief is imaginary is not an answer to the argument, The effects of the experience are real that's an indication the cause is real,the effects are real it cant be imagination, that's true a priroi, learn to follow the thinking,

Joe suffers from the ongoing non-sequitur of believing that a logical possibility necessitates an existential possibility. That is how he fails in his modal argument, and we see here another such failure of Joe to differentiate a thought from that imagined reality.

you don;t know what "stalagmite" means, it just means of pertaining to existence,I never said anything to indicate a possibility equals necessity except in the Modal argument, this is not modal argument, you really don't understand anything,

In the mind of the ontological theist wishing makes it so.


stop distracting from the discussion you are philosophically illiterate jsut shut up and learn,

Joe Hinman said...

" the experience is real so the cause is real,"

Joe, you suffer from a diminished capacity to differentiate fantasy from reality.

An experience is a brain process. A brain process might be a representation of an outside reality or it might be an internal feedback path that does not represent an outside reality.

do you assume, accept, or believe that there is a world external to your own mind? how do you perceive it? through your senses right? the senses collect sense data and transfer it to the brain where it is sorted and collated and interpreted, right?

so every thing external to our minds is translated into a brain experience. So being brain experience does not prevent us from distinguishing between the real world and imagination does it.

again, if the effects are real, they exist imn the world they not just in the mind then the cause real it is in the world not just in the mind,

do you agree? do you understand?

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Joe Hinman said...

" do you assume, accept, or believe that there is a world external to your own mind? "
I provisionally accept the basic reliability of the human senses.



" so every thing external to our minds is translated into a brain experience. "
But the reverse is not true. Brain experiences may be autogenerated and not a representation of an outside reality.



" again, if the effects are real, they exist imn the world they not just in the mind"
No, perceived effects can be autogenerated and not a representation of the outside real world.


6:31 AM

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger Joe Hinman said...

" do you assume, accept, or believe that there is a world external to your own mind? "
I provisionally accept the basic reliability of the human senses.



" so every thing external to our minds is translated into a brain experience. "
But the reverse is not true. Brain experiences may be autogenerated and not a representation of an outside reality.

when I say the experiences are real I do not merely mean I define them as real, they are actual. They are tangible,they can be reacquired. They are real in the world. Therefore, they cannot be imaginary they are not only in the brain, yo have not answers my argument.



" again, if the effects are real, they exist in the world they not just in the mind"
No, perceived effects can be autogenerated and not a representation of the outside real world.

they are not merely perceived they are measurable. examples:

(1) in one study mystical experiencers were 14% more likely to beat drug addition including heroine,

(2) More likely to beat alcholism

(3) 20% less depressed

(4) scored higher on self actualization tests.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" when I say the experiences are real I do not merely mean I define them as real, they are actual. They are tangible,they can be reacquired. They are real in the world. "
An experience is a real process of a real thing, the brain.


"Therefore, they cannot be imaginary they are not only in the brain,"
I can experience the mental imaginary of magical flying pink unicorns. That is a real experience. That does not mean magical flying pink unicorns really exist outside my imagination.



" they are not merely perceived they are measurable. examples:"

" (1) in one study mystical experiencers were 14% more likely to beat drug addition including heroine,"
So?

People who imagine certain things behave differently than people who don't imagine those things. So what?


8:55 AM

Joe Hinman said...

" when I say the experiences are real I do not merely mean I define them as real, they are actual. They are tangible,they can be reacquired. They are real in the world. "

An experience is a real process of a real thing, the brain.

no it's not. when experiences are totally imaginary they produce real effects,


"Therefore, they cannot be imaginary they are not only in the brain,"

I can experience the mental imaginary of magical flying pink unicorns. That is a real experience. That does not mean magical flying pink unicorns really exist outside my imagination.

not talking about mental imagery no imagery invoked, mystical experience is beyond imagery. If you quite heroine that;s a real tangible effect, not imaginary,

" they are not merely perceived they are measurable. examples:"

" (1) in one study mystical experiencers were 14% more likely to beat drug addition including heroine,"

So?

so it;measurable then it;s not just imaginary,

People who imagine certain things behave differently than people who don't imagine those things. So what?

what study proves that? name the study?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

"If you quite heroine that;s a real tangible effect, not imaginary,"
That is one of the most scatterbrained assertions I have ever heard, and I have read a lot of crackpot bullshit on theistic blogs.

" so it;measurable then it;s not just imaginary,"
People who feel things act on those feelings. So what? That does not mean their feelings have a real outside source. If you think that acting on feelings proves the feelings are triggered by a real outside force you are an idiot.


9:57 PM

Joe Hinman said...


"If you quite heroine that;s a real tangible effect, not imaginary,"


That is one of the most scatterbrained assertions I have ever heard, and I have read a lot of crackpot bullshit on theistic blogs.

Heroine is a real substance, people who are addicted to it are really taking it physically not jut imagining it, they can't stop needing just by imagining they don't need it, dumb ass,what an idiot you are,

" so it;measurable then it;s not just imaginary,"


People who feel things act on those feelings. So what? That does not mean their feelings have a real outside source.

if they are dictated to heroine it dos, it;s physical think their bodies crave the substance fool.your little atheist know nothings have brain washed you into think everything that goes though the mind is unreal,matchmaker math is uncreal and sicnecdei sinreal.
scinece is in thein d stupid.,

atheist have traied you noit to think


If you think that acting on feelings proves the feelings are triggered by a real outside force you are an idiot.

I gave you examples of experiences that are based upon reality, we experience reality

you have been brain washed to stop using your mind

Joe Hinman said...

This is so ridiculous that these atheists have been trained to stop using their brains, this guy think any thing that is experienced in the mind is unreal and is cut off from reality,but he doesn't get that everything in the world is part of our experience and has a relational to our minds when we encounter it,just unassuming that any thing in the mind is imnagainary is just lusciously stupid,

all of these examples are physical things, the results of the religious experiences are real when they result intense four things and they do.

hey are not merely perceived they are measurable. examples:

(1) in one study mystical experiencers were 14% more likely to beat drug addition including heroine,

(2) More likely to beat alcholism

(3) 20% less depressed

(4) scored higher on self actualization tests.


say you are in a car wreck. the wreck causes your leg to break, it;s a real effect, it have an experience of the wreck but the experience is of a real thing that actually hapepned to you,

what kind of experience would make someone quite heroine? or be self actualized? it has to be an experience of something real,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...


" Heroine is a real substance, people who are addicted to it are really taking it physically not jut imagining it, they can't stop needing just by imagining they don't need it,"
How stupid, of course they do, that's how people quit, by deciding they don't need it.




" I gave you examples of experiences that are based upon reality, we experience reality"
No wonder you never completed your PhD. Your thoughts are scattered and disjointed.

People change behavior because of their thoughts. If they imagine something those ideas can change behavior even if the thing they imagine does not actually exist outside of their imagination.

If you think a change in behavior of a human being demonstrates and outside reality to their thoughts you are an idiot.

Try to focus. Do you have some kind of attention deficit issue? I have never encountered a more scattered and irrational individual.


9:02 AM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...
",just unassuming that any thing in the mind is imnagainary is just lusciously stupid,"
Which is why I never said that, reading skills Joe, develop them

" all of these examples are physical things, the results of the religious experiences are real when they result intense four things and they do."
You are such a scatterbrain.

The results of the experience are real.
The experience itself is a real brain process.
That does not necessitate that the experience was a result of a real outside force.

Reasoning 101.


9:13 AM

Mike Gerow said...

Okay, reasoning then..... The problems is, SP, you show no way to account for the different results that distinguish, for Joe and Dr Hood, between a "brain effect" and what they define as a mystical experience. IOW, assuming Joe's empirical claims are accurate, why don't "induced mystical experiences" (like with helmets) have same measurable effects on personality? That's the real crux of what Joe's saying...

That's it, the whole ball of wax....deflate that and you've ...um, "won" ... or some shit.

Anyway, you guys need to address the point - like, maybe, you could say ," if people change, they only change because they THINK there was something that changed them, whereas, if they know it's fake, they don't change" ...

Or something....

Mike Gerow said...

Okay, my clearer point is .... doesn't really matter, in the end, whether the experiences those guys are on about are actually experiences of "nothing" instead of experiences of "something" -- i.e. whether, in reality, people experience "absence" (nothing!) rather than "presence" when they experience (what's called) "mystical union"

In other words, whether or not you guys are correct in saying, "Well, there might be some kind of brain fart, but you haven't shown there's any substantial reality there'" Joe's argument should work out about the same....

In the second case, he just has to switch from arguing a "causality of substance" to a "causality of structure," and restate his case quelque chose comme ça....

"... BUT, seems a bit odd if the universe is structured a way such that that happens, if only certain kinds of events causing such sweeping though predictable changes in people, so why do you think the universe is like that?"

His assertion, therefore, that "effects require causes" may have a bit more behind it than you guys think...

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mike Gerow said...

" That's it, the whole ball of wax....deflate that and you've ...um, "won" ... or some shit."
I appreciate your dismissal of "winning".

" Anyway, you guys need to address the point - like, maybe, you could say ," if people change, they only change because they THINK there was something that changed them, whereas, if they know it's fake, they don't change" ...

Or something...."
Ok, at least you are making an reasonable attempt to analyze psychological effects.

If a person meditates into some mental state using a mantra or some other technique such as a focus point, or breathing, or psychedelic drugs, or religious chanting, or whatever clearly the effects will vary. There are so many variables I doubt you and I can come to any definitive conclusions or broadly valid generalizations.


But the notion that a person prays to god to, say, quit drinking, then quits drinking, therefore god exists should be recognizable as faulty reasoning by any PhD candidate who hopes to successfully defend his thesis at an accredited American university.

So, if I have an experience of visitation from Venus the Love God who inspires me to have unprotected sex with multiple women and I end up with 5 different baby mamas and 14 children therefore Venus the Love God is real? For pity's sake, really?


9:48 PM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mike Gerow said...


" His assertion, therefore, that "effects require causes" may have a bit more behind it than you guys think..."
Everything in the universe in continuously or continually interacting with all the things within range and are mutually the causes and effects of the changes in each other. Which in no way supports an assertion of any god, much less the incoherent Christian god.


11:44 PM

Joe Hinman said...

" Heroine is a real substance, people who are addicted to it are really taking it physically not jut imagining it, they can't stop needing just by imagining they don't need it,"

How stupid, of course they do, that's how people quit, by deciding they don't need it.

No it's not how they quit. Almost no one can quite heroine just by deciding it they almost always need a replacement like methadone, that's physical, Heroine is a physical addiction!


" I gave you examples of experiences that are based upon reality, we experience reality"


No wonder you never completed your PhD. Your thoughts are scattered and disjointed.

that;s cute, you don't have the intelligence to understand the argument and you want to get abusive in defining your ignorance. You still have not dealt with the fact that these are problems that require physical or even tangible solution. No one just decides to stop having problems and feel better abort himself. If that worked there would be no mental illness, or any problems complected with self esteem. No one just up and decides to quite being climatically depressed. Trying to ascribe mere tricks of the mind to every problem is simply stupid. I can show studies that found mystical experience is not a mere trick of the mind. Psychiatrists studying it say there is something real there.

Dusty: "People change behavior because of their thoughts. If they imagine something those ideas can change behavior even if the thing they imagine does not actually exist outside of their imagination."

That rarely works and it only works with certain kinds of problems certainly not with physical addiction. Not when cold Turkey is so severe as with Heroine. It you want to quite taco you just tough it out thorough the withdrawl and then it is a physiological problem,But Heroine the withdrawl is too sever most people can't make it,

If you think a change in behavior of a human being demonstrates and outside reality to their thoughts you are an idiot.

It's totally silly. you are just ignoring the facts we all know real obviously. No one who has lived on Earth is going to agree that all problems are just imagination and all you have to do is just shape up and think right and you have no more probables. everyone knows that is stupid. Do you have a perfect life?

Try to focus. Do you have some kind of attention deficit issue? I have never encountered a more scattered and irrational individual.

you are putting more energy into thinking of insults then you are trying to understand the arguments, if you had a real wit the insults would just flow. You need all the mental energy you can get to devote to trying to understand things,

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said...
",just unassuming that any thing in the mind is imaginary is just lusciously stupid,"


Dusty says: Which is why I never said that, reading skills Joe, develop them

you did say it, you said it in the one I just got thorugh answering,


HERE:
--Dusty: "People change behavior because of their thoughts. If they imagine something those ideas can change behavior even if the thing they imagine does not actually exist outside of their imagination."-- [end quote]

" all of these examples are physical things, the results of the religious experiences are real when they result intense four things and they do."
You are such a scatterbrain.

The results of the experience are real.
The experience itself is a real brain process.
That does not necessitate that the experience was a result of a real outside force.

yes it does. When when causes are mental the results are mental, addition to substances never happens without the substance

Reasoning 101.

that's not an answer ,you need spend more tine thinking about the issues,

Joe Hinman said...

Mike:

Anyway, you guys need to address the point - like, maybe, you could say ," if people change, they only change because they THINK there was something that changed them, whereas, if they know it's fake, they don't change" ...

about half mystical experiences are not expected,so they don't have the thought that something is changing then about half the tine.

I have a whole chapter on this in the book it's complex and I can't just reproduce it here,

Joe Hinman said...

If a person meditates into some mental state using a mantra or some other technique such as a focus point, or breathing, or psychedelic drugs, or religious chanting, or whatever clearly the effects will vary. There are so many variables I doubt you and I can come to any definitive conclusions or broadly valid generalizations.

that's not mystical experience, at least half the time it happens without seeking it and without any technique to bring it on,


But the notion that a person prays to god to, say, quit drinking, then quits drinking, therefore god exists should be recognizable as faulty reasoning by any PhD candidate who hopes to successfully defend his thesis at an accredited American university.


that's a real mutiloatiomn of my argumen,ti t really is just totally irrlkivant toanything I've sakid, youir unders


So, if I have an experience of visitation from Venus the Love God who inspires me to have unprotected sex with multiple women and I end up with 5 different baby mamas and 14 children therefore Venus the Love God is real? For pity's sake, really?

Joe Hinman said...

So, if I have an experience of visitation from Venus the Love God who inspires me to have unprotected sex with multiple women and I end up with 5 different baby mamas and 14 children therefore Venus the Love God is real? For pity's sake, really?

sloppy attempt at paradox just betrays the stupid understanding of the issues. anyone can treat complex serous issuers with contempt an d a real sign of a shallow mind, you clearly don't understand what mystical experience is. you have been brain washing into thinking all religious experience works by placcebo and that it;s evokes by an expectant penitent, but that is not the case,. Some people have these experience with no warning and having never sought it and having no belief.

Joe Hinman said...

" His assertion, therefore, that "effects require causes" may have a bit more behind it than you guys think..."
Everything in the universe in continuously or continually interacting with all the things within range and are mutually the causes and effects of the changes in each other. Which in no way supports an assertion of any god, much less the incoherent Christian god.

that is a totally meaningless statement. you are asserting that barbecue you think there;s no evidence from cosmology for God (which there is) then there must be no evidence rom experience,which is is nuts. that does not follow.

Your assertion does not disprove my obvious truth that real effects have real causes, you can't give me a counter example, show me a real effect with an imaginary cause,

you are also failing to understand the complexity of the argument as to why these irreverence warrant belief, you installment sub point that is not the major issue and forcing it into place of the whole argument. read that kattest poimt on the csualo link

Joe Hinman said...



Council on Spiritual Practices

State of Unitive Consciousness http://www.csp.org/experience/docs/unitive_consciousness.html
"Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. "

If the atheist thesis is true and it's just a trick of the mind anyone could do ti, But

a) why is it accors the board an over all better life? the quote I just posted above

b) why does it work for mystical experience and not other "tricks of the mind?" there is no study that showed one can produce the same effect by other psychological means,

Mike Gerow said...

So, if I have an experience of visitation from Venus the Love God who inspires me to have unprotected sex with multiple women and I end up with 5 different baby mamas and 14 children therefore Venus the Love God is real? For pity's sake, really?"

No, my point's a bit subtler....

In your scenario the evolutionary advantages are obvious, BUT, if people are having strong and specific, though otherwise unexplainable perceptions of some ineffability so ineffable it can just as likely be described in terms of "nothing" as "something" depending on someone's cultural/socioreligious background, and then it turns out that that "shaking of the foundations" that people experience -- i.e. the ego-effacing effects of the "mysteriosifying" event -- are useful evolutionistically and select for survival, well, it strikes me, the universe seems a bit more paradoxical now ... maybe even a bit bizarre ... at least from a naturalistic POV.

That's, for me, where Joe's warrant ultimately resides....

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" No it's not how they quit. Almost no one can quite heroine just by deciding it they almost always need a replacement like methadone, that's physical, Heroine is a physical addiction!"
You don't know anything about addiction.

People quit being addicted when they decide to overcome the pain of withdrawal and the cravings to return. In most cases that happens when the addict hits bottom in some way, such as getting arrested, losing a job or spouse.

Typically the person does not do it alone and there are various methods of detox and then not relapsing.

The idea that one particular method has 14% more success by some measure therefore god is idiotic.


4:28 AM

Joe Hinman said...

Yes Mike not a bad point, it would be less subtle (which might be needed here) then the point you are makimng but might get the point across more clearly to say it: how is it that the universe just happens to be organized in such a way (by accident) that this kind of realization "just happens" to result from the same "accident" that created religion and gives millions of people the sense of God's presence, then it happens to turn out long term positive effects.

even when people don't get"God's presence" out of it but "the void" it still has the same effects.

btw void does not equal no God, because Vedantists call it void but they do''t say there's no God.,

Joe Hinman said...

Dusty syas: "People quit being addicted when they decide to overcome the pain of withdrawal and the cravings to return. In most cases that happens when the addict hits bottom in some way, such as getting arrested, losing a job or spouse."


they usually don't do it without physical medication

they usually need a coined treatment program including medication, as the source below says.

http://guidedoc.com/heroin-addiction-treatment-success-rates-statistics

Most heroin addicts realize that they cannot kick the habit on their own, because addiction to opioids is a disease in much the same way diabetes is a disease. Several heroin addiction treatment options can help the heroin addict return to a healthy, normal life. These medications are not used on their own to overcome addiction but are offered in conjunction with counseling and a support network of friends or family when possible. Medications can be given as an inpatient or outpatient treatment, and the type of program that is used can have a big impact on completion and success. When it comes to heroin addiction treatment success rates, as part of an outpatient treatment, medication therapy has a 35 percent completion rate, while the completion rate for a residential program was as high as 65 percent, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).


if you could increase by 14% obviously that much better, So why is it that those who have analytical experience at least 14% more of them find it that much more effective,

Joe Hinman said...

trying to minimize the significance of that statistic is insane, it's just immature and childish. Heroine is not a stroll in the park,people spend their lives trying to kick it,anything that helps is obviously significant, trying to pretend it;s easy no big deal is just foolish,

Mike Gerow said...

Well, I dunno? Maybe it's more like a "void" than the "heat dead universe at the end of things" which naturalist/materialists call a void? Since that's is really just a reorganization of the same stuff there already is.

But yeah, you're righ that I'm prob'ly employing too much, sort of like, theology-talk here for a lot of people....

Mike Gerow said...

But (even tho I don't know how to say it very simply) the real point is, the phenomenon has strong enough real effects to still need explaining, whether you choose to view it as indicating some kind of immediate irruption of the supernatural into our temporarily, or more ...um, sort of "materialistically."

It's materialist who needs to answer here....

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said...
",just unassuming that any thing in the mind is imaginary is just lusciously stupid,"


--Dusty: "People change behavior because of their thoughts. If they imagine something those ideas can change behavior even if the thing they imagine does not actually exist outside of their imagination."-- [end quote]


Those are 2 very different statements. Yours is a strawman of mine


4:55 AM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mike Gerow said...

" In your scenario the evolutionary advantages are obvious, BUT, if people are having strong and specific, though otherwise unexplainable perceptions of some ineffability so ineffable it can just as likely be described in terms of "nothing" as "something" depending on someone's cultural/socioreligious background, and then it turns out that that "shaking of the foundations" that people experience -- i.e. the ego-effacing effects of the "mysteriosifying" event -- are useful evolutionistically and select for survival, well, it strikes me, the universe seems a bit more paradoxical now ... maybe even a bit bizarre ... at least from a naturalistic POV.

That's, for me, where Joe's warrant ultimately resides...."
Where? Your text above is meandering and vague.


10:59 AM

Mike Gerow said...

The point is, in simple terms, or as simple as I can make them...

IF your claim is "there's nothing to this religion stuff"-- which, I admit, is something I'm just assuming here, I guess -- AND if people have "mystical experiences" that expose them to some kind of "ineffable otherness" which they take to be at the center of reality, THEN instead of "becoming better people" as Joe's research suggests, why don't they just ...go INSANE or something?

Joe's argument doesn't depend on positing some kind of particular cause for any particular experience; it really more of an ontological thing ... and it makes a stronger case than you guys realize, I think.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mike Gerow said...

" The point is, in simple terms, or as simple as I can make them...

IF your claim is "there's nothing to this religion stuff"-- which, I admit, is something I'm just assuming here, I guess"
That's a reasonable guess, but not precisely my assertion. I am personally convinced there is no god, but religion is a real human tendancy.


"-- AND if people have "mystical experiences" that expose them to some kind of "ineffable otherness" which they take to be at the center of reality, THEN instead of "becoming better people" as Joe's research suggests, why don't they just ...go INSANE or something?

Joe's argument doesn't depend on positing some kind of particular cause for any particular experience; it really more of an ontological thing ... and it makes a stronger case than you guys realize, I think."
Ok, but a stronger case for god than we atheists think?

So, Vishnu is the case because yogi's in India have mystical experiences? How about native Americans? Some Indians will have mystical experiences about their perceived spirit world.

No, I don't think so. The simple answer is that humans have various states of consciousness due to brain structure.

Pointing out some statistics about good things happening to those with certain experiences is really a bankrupt argument for god.


2:09 PM

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said...
",just unassuming that any thing in the mind is imaginary is just lusciously stupid,"


--Dusty: "People change behavior because of their thoughts. If they imagine something those ideas can change behavior even if the thing they imagine does not actually exist outside of their imagination."-- [end quote]


Those are 2 very different statements. Yours is a strawman of mine
\
people change their behavior because of heir thoughts is bull fucking shit, the statement i quoted about Heroine addiction said they give it up just because want to without help and mecicne,

YOU HAVE NO EVIENDECE ON TAHT PINT AND i DO, SO YOU LOSE

Mike Gerow said...

"The simple answer is that humans have various states of consciousness due to brain structure. "

The simple question, then, is "why is it structured like that?" Why do certain types of weird, unexplainable experiences lead to positive effects (quite possibly even survival-enhancing effects in evolutionary terms) instead of negative or erratic ones, which would seem would seem more likely at least "prima facie", don't you think?

What these researchers are saying is, they've developed some criteria to identify similarities in certain kinds of weird experiences across cultures, even if the experiences may have differing intercultural descriptions -- and, in fact, might even have opposing descriptions as in "presence" (Western) and "absence" (Eastern) which we discussed -- and then show that that class of experiences also correlate those with some definable long-lasting concrete effects on the experiencers' personalities...

if they can do that, it seems there might be something there that does need some explaining, you think?

Mike Gerow said...

"Ok, but a stronger case for god than we atheists think? "

Well, maybe, I dunno? ... It could be, perhaps, if you wanna call it that? ... but it's Joe's concept of God that's on the line here, not mine so much, so I'd best let him argue that with you....

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" people change their behavior because of heir thoughts is bull fucking shit, "
So what a person thinks does not change their behavior? How stupidly do you intend to speak here?

Uhm, Joe, it's called thinking things over, making a decision, and acting on the decision.


8:28 PM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mike Gerow said...

" The simple question, then, is "why is it structured like that?" Why do certain types of weird, unexplainable experiences lead to positive effects (quite possibly even survival-enhancing effects in evolutionary terms) instead of negative or erratic ones,"
Because people who drove themselves crazy just by thinking ended up dead before they could reproduce.


" if they can do that, it seems there might be something there that does need some explaining, you think?"
Sure, the brain is a complicated device. Most people are basically stable because unstable people tend to die, especially in our harsher past.


9:36 PM

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said...

" people change their behavior because of heir thoughts is bull fucking shit, "
So what a person thinks does not change their behavior? How stupidly do you intend to speak here?

Uhm, Joe, it's called thinking things over, making a decision, and acting on the decision.



you are generalizing based upon your own prejudice and preconceived notion with nothing to back you up. You are also ignoring the case I've already documented that Heroine addiction is a different situation than most. People don't normally stick to resolve to quite Heroine without physicking and mental aid.

It is obviously impressive that these experiences enable those who have then to be that much more resolved to stick to thier desireto be free.

Joe Hinman said...

Mike Gerow said...

" The simple question, then, is "why is it structured like that?" Why do certain types of weird, unexplainable experiences lead to positive effects (quite possibly even survival-enhancing effects in evolutionary terms) instead of negative or erratic ones,"

Dusty:
Because people who drove themselves crazy just by thinking ended up dead before they could reproduce.

that's really LaMarkian evolution. you are really just spinning moon beam, there is no evidence people drive themselves crazy and die that's just your little mythology at work. There is no evidence that religious ideas are genetic. that's another atheist brain wash myth based upon their non understanding of brain science; their pretense that brain sciece nails it all down when it does not.


" if they can do that, it seems there might be something there that does need some explaining, you think?"

Dusty:
Sure, the brain is a complicated device. Most people are basically stable because unstable people tend to die, especially in our harsher past.

don't look now but that;s atheist mythology's argument from the gaps,Brain is complex ooooo,we don't all it can do dooooooooo so therefore it must do all the God stuff, wow so it's brilliant! it all fits fit;s together to keep God off my back ,.thank you science! praise scinece!

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said...

" people change their behavior because of heir thoughts is bull fucking shit, "
So what a person thinks does not change their behavior? How stupidly do you intend to speak here?

SP Uhm, Joe, it's called thinking things over, making a decision, and acting on the decision.

" you are generalizing based upon your own prejudice and preconceived notion with nothing to back you up. "

So, acting on decisions is now simply a matter of my prejudice? How stupid.


4:41 AM

Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Joe Hinman said...


"there is no evidence people drive themselves crazy and die that's just your little mythology at work."
Reading skills. Try reading for comprehension, you really suck at it.


4:51 AM

Joe Hinman said...

people change their behavior because of heir thoughts is bull fucking shit, "
So what a person thinks does not change their behavior? How stupidly do you intend to speak here?

SP Uhm, Joe, it's called thinking things over, making a decision, and acting on the decision.

" you are generalizing based upon your own prejudice and preconceived notion with nothing to back you up. "

So, acting on decisions is now simply a matter of my prejudice? How stupid.


stop the stupid game and face the truth, you have not answered my argument, I just said there some cases that harder to stick to that others, you can't deny that,heroines one of then,So something helped these guys get off Heroine and is amnazing,

documentation of my view:



http://guidedoc.com/heroin-addiction-treatment-success-rates-statistics

Most heroin addicts realize that they cannot kick the habit on their own, because addiction to opioids is a disease in much the same way diabetes is a disease. Several heroin addiction treatment options can help the heroin addict return to a healthy, normal life. These medications are not used on their own to overcome addiction but are offered in conjunction with counseling and a support network of friends or family when possible. Medications can be given as an inpatient or outpatient treatment, and the type of program that is used can have a big impact on completion and success. When it comes to heroin addiction treatment success rates, as part of an outpatient treatment, medication therapy has a 35 percent completion rate, while the completion rate for a residential program was as high as 65 percent, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).


if you could increase by 14% obviously that much better, So why is it that those who have analytical experience at least 14% more of them find it that much more effective,

12:06 PM Delete

Joe Hinman said...

Dusty said:

"Because people who drove themselves crazy just by thinking ended up dead before they could reproduce."

I said

"there is no evidence people drive themselves crazy and die that's just your little mythology at work."

is that a failure to comprehend. he says people drove themselves crazy and died before they could reproduce he did;t say they died o being crazy neither did I. They drive themselves crazy and they die that doesn't mean one-causes the other, but I think it;s implied inihis testament they do.

It doesn't matter because either way there's no evidence people drive themselves crazy,the only comprehension solitaire here is his failure to understand the arguments, he;s too obsessed with insulting to get even for the trouncing I gave him on dangerous idea,,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...


" stop the stupid game and face the truth, you have not answered my argument,"
What argument? Something helps 14% of addicts therefore god? Preposterous.


" I just said there some cases that harder to stick to that others, you can't deny that,heroines one of then,So something helped these guys get off Heroine and is amnazing,"
I am not amazed. Some techniques are more effective than others. So what?


" if you could increase by 14% obviously that much better, So why is it that those who have analytical experience at least 14% more of them find it that much more effective,"
Therefore god? Absurd.


12:06 PM Delete

7:03 AM

Mike Gerow said...

"Sure, the brain is a complicated device. Most people are basically stable because unstable people tend to die, especially in our harsher past."

Well, we could go even further and conjecture that a self-effacing "mystical" experience helps keep focus on the clan, on its survival, but a bit paradoxically, such also improves chances of the thusly-focused individual's survival and propagation, compared to more self-centered behavior. But then you have to deal the idea that that's how the UNIVERSE itself is/was structured, with a bias towards human selflessness, so it's all not just explainable by "brain structure"

Stardusty Psyche said...

oe Hinman said...

" It doesn't matter because either way there's no evidence people drive themselves crazy,the only comprehension solitaire here is his failure to understand the arguments, he;s too obsessed with insulting to get even for the trouncing I gave him on dangerous idea,,"
Reading skills, I never claimed that anybody was driving themselves crazy, I was giving a reason why they don't. Get the difference? I have noticed you do not grasp the content of sentences unless they are very simple, direct, and in a blocked out format. Nuance of conversation easily escapes you. I suggest you slow down, compensate for your reading problem, and try to focus more on what was actually written in context.

Mike has been raising the valid point as to why these states of mind would necessarily be beneficial. Why don't they lead to self destructive behaviors?

The simplest explanation is that in the harsh environment of our ancestors self destructive behavior tended to lead toward self destruction.

But, I suppose you will skim over my words, get all pissed off, and find some way to mangle them, again.


7:11 AM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mike Gerow said...

" But then you have to deal the idea that that's how the UNIVERSE itself is/was structured, with a bias towards human selflessness, so it's all not just explainable by "brain structure""
Our observable universe is a big place compared to our brain. While my brain is made of the same basic stuff, its arrangement is very different than, say, a galaxy.

Life is fundamentally selfish, but social animals behave socially because we have evolved to have better chance of reproduction through cooperation. In a complex social animal there is a complicated mix of selfish behaviors, altruistic behaviors, and side effect behaviors.


9:06 AM

Joe Hinman said...

Because people who drove themselves crazy just by thinking ended up dead before they could reproduce."

that means some did, they did it, they drove themselves crazy. past tense means it happened, if you really meant to say non one did that because they had this would have happened then you should have said that, you have no communication skills.

Joe Hinman said...

Life is fundamentally selfish, but social animals behave socially because we have evolved to have better chance of reproduction through cooperation. In a complex social animal there is a complicated mix of selfish behaviors, altruistic behaviors, and side effect behaviors.


you can't pretend there's a genetic basis to it just because you don't want to believe in God.

Joe Hinman said...

The simplest explanation is that in the harsh environment of our ancestors self destructive behavior tended to lead toward self destruction.


that has no bearing on mystical experience, people who such experiences are much less ;crazy than those who do't, they are together score higher tests related to self actualization meaning they are more mature more sane and more understanding,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" you can't pretend there's a genetic basis to it just because you don't want to believe in God."
True, I'm not pretending.

11:00 AM

Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said...

you are pretending that your speculations and assertions are as good as proof.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" you are pretending that your speculations and assertions are as good as proof."
Science doesn't do proof.


3:53 AM

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said...

" you are pretending that your speculations and assertions are as good as proof."
Science doesn't do proof.

you don't do science