Monday, October 22, 2018

Unicorns Don't Exist, Therefore, God Doesn't Exist?

Image result for picture of unicorn saying "I do exist"


I found a discussion on an atheist sight, or at least a sight with lots of atheists, where a guy seemed to be arguing because he knows there are no unicorns he knows there's no God.



    • Avatar



       

      You can't prove a negative. I know that unicorns don't exist: I don't need to prove that they don't. It's up to those of the unicorn faith to prove that they do.[1]
    I thought he was  implying that there is a common knowledge that there's no God just as there is a common knowledge there are no unicorns. I brought up certain of my experience God arguments and the fact that 90% world pop believe in some form of God as an argument that there's no "common knowledge" of there being no God. He immediately questioned the 90% I will document this  figure then  talk about the exchange.

    According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists...) [2]

    The Famous Phil Zuckerman of the Sweden argument for atheism weighs in:

    According to the latest international survey data, as reported by Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera in the recently published Oxford Handbook of Atheism, there are approximately 450-500 million non-believers in God worldwide, which amounts to about 7% of the global adult population. And according to the Pew Research Center, of we broaden the category to include all non-religious people in general — those unaffiliated adults who do not identify with any religion — we’re talking 1.1 billion people, which equals about 16.5% of the global adult population. As such, “non-religious” is actually the third largest “religion” in the world, coming only behind Christianity (in first place) and Islam (in second). Thus, there are more secular men and women on planet earth — many of whom are atheists and agnostics — than there are Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, Sikhs, Jains, or Jews.[3]

     photo 01_groups_zps9705e0f9.png

    OK so now what do we make of all this? Here is a sample of the discussion on "Word on Fire!"[4]


    Cliff Langdon 


    I think you might mean that 90% of people (if indeed it is that many which I doubt) believe in A god or some various gods.Crucially, most people do NOT believe in not the same god as the one that you believe in, because just 33% of the world's population is the world's largest religion, Christianity (not even taking into account the different branches of christianity which, it could be argued, believe in different gods).

    By your own earlier 'logic' ( that "six billion people testify to belief in God based upon personal experiences and logic, as well as tradition" somehow proves them to be correct), the fact that most people do not believe in your god must suggest that your god is the wrong one (and therefore does NOT exists)
    Notice I did not say it proves then to be correct I said it negates the idea of an atheistic common knowledge,

    it also follows from the same logic, that all gods believed in by humans are similarly in the minority, and are similarly therefore the wrong ones, and therefore also do not exist.
    By that logic no religion could be true,It just seems odd that groups with 33% of humans in them are wrong, and all groups are wrong,except one with 3% in it. Of course I;m still not saying that popular = true I'm still going on the 'common knowledge' assumption. If there is just a common knowledge that there's no God and it;s so basic it doesn't require explain as to how it works,  why is it only knowledge commonly to 3%?
    Unless of course we accept that your logic that 'belief is proof' is a complete fallacy.Which of course, is the case.The fact that many people share a delusion does not make that delusion valid. It only suggests that the brainwashing is very effective.
    I have no doubt that some people derive pleasure and benefit from their beliefs in gods. Many people also suffer real harm and misery because of theirs beliefs (and the beliefs of others). None of which goes anywhere near proving that the subject of those beliefs (gods) is/are real.
    That is disprove by my studies. But he's talking about a different kind of religious experience  he means the experience of being religious,I;m talking about a level of consciousness associated with divine encounter. My comments:


    Joe Hinman to Cliff Langdon

    I never asserted that it's true because more people believe it. You asserted that you just know it's true even though you can't tell me how,I assume you mean because no one is talking about seeming unicorns. That does not lend itself to opposing bleak in God because most people believe and most people beehive because they experience God's reality You base your unbelief in unicorns upon your experience of a world with no unicorns,but I find a world filled with people who experience God.


    Your assertions about the nature of religious experiences are wrong, The studies show RE is very good for people it helps across the board, There are no negative results from mystical


    experience. The negative experiences of religion come from people.



    Joe Hinman to Cliff Langdon

    What do you have against the term "humanity?" Humanity is people, Yes it is 90% that is easily quantified. One artocle say onlys 7% don't believe: https://www.quora.com/Is-it...


    That believers in God have different notions of what God is about is unimportant. Cultural constructs mark the distinctions between faiths but the one reality lurks behind them all. This is demonstrated by the fact of those religious experience studies I spoke abouit. All the experiences of God from around the world are the same, that indicates they are encountering the same reality.

    Cliff Langdon 

    No. You are attempting that use the (dubious) statistic that 90% of 'humanity' believes in some concept of god as 'evidence' for the existence of gods in general. You therefore have to accept that.....the correlating statistic is that most of humanity actively does not believe in any particular god or gods and that this is likewise evidence that all of those gods do not exist. (neither argument stacks up, btw. I'm just pointing out that if you can use your claim, I can use mine).
    The stuff at the first proves the 90%is good figure, notice it;s  from atheist sources.
    Cliff Langdon 

    For example most people do not believe in the Christian God; most people to not believe in Allah, most people do not believe in Ganesh the elephant god & remover of obstacles; and most people do not believe in Cardea the Roman goddess of door hinges; nor Hathor the cow goddess, nor Tawaret, the Hippo goddess of childbirth; Phanes, the god of procreation is similarly shunned by the majority, as is Ananke, the goddess of inevitability, and Brigit the Celtic goddess of fire & poetry; likewise, Anoia, the Goddess of things that get stuck in drawers, and not forgetting of course The Flying Spaghetti Monster (Blessed be His Noodly Appendage) is not as popular as he should be.
    A person's faith in a god does not mean that that god exists. Sorry, but it simply doesn't. By all means argue that this is practically a definition of Faith: to be Faithful is to believe without proof, and I would agree.But it isn't proof.
    Ah youth where did you leave me? I made that very argument in high school when I first started calling myself an  atheist, to impress a girl who was in debate. She was the reason I got in to debate, I found she had boy friend who was national  debate champion so I was  no competition for  him. But he had good dope. 

    my  answer to Langdon on the net


    Joe Hinman

    you are not paying attention. I did not say 90% is evidence I said  it's equivolant to your methodology about the unicorn, we might call that epistemic justification,This is false on two counts. first you have not demonstrated why they must believe in "a particular God" nor have you proven they don't. what you really mean is they don't believe in the same identity for God, That is also wrong since most people believe in a creative being with mind who has will and volition, there is no logic or empirical evidence to say it's not the same one, Just because people have different ideas of what he wants doesn't prove it's not the same one,

    Cliff Langdon 
    and finally, no: not "All the experiences of God from around the world are the same". What a ridiculous claim.
    That is just the fact that he knows  nothing about the studies about which I wrote about in my book the trace of God.[5]


    Here is an article you can read about those studies.[6]

    Post Script

    Of course there is no coloration between the number of people who believe in something and the truth of it. Yet it seem to me that Landon is arguing that while you can;t prove God exists just because the  majority believe in some form of God, it's proof that he doesn't that there is no unified overwhelming consciousness. I think that is just a study in trying to have it both ways. I may have created a straw man kn response but I actually think that,  ironically. my straw man is a better argument than his was. He basically said I know there are no unicorns because there aren't any.


    I wouldn't put much stock in the common  knowledge argument,  a lot of crap has been justified under that rue-brick. I used to make a religious instinct argument this would be useful there., The problem is if the situation was reversed (90% did not believe in God) I would still believe based upon other things. That's partly why i don't make that instinct argument anymore. But  Ii think the 90% statistic is a good refutation of the kind of argument I  saw brewing with Langdon, 




    Sources

    [1] Cliff Langdon, comments,in Matt Nelson,  "How To Prove That God Doesn't Exist" Word on Fire (July 12,2016)
    https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-to-prove-that-god-doesnt-exist/5216/#comment-4156529925

    the comments are quite recent within a few days,

    [2] Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera in Phil Zuckerman, "How Many Atheists Are There?" Psychology Today (Oct 20,2015)
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201510/how-many-atheists-are-there ;

    Original publication Keysar, Ariela; Navarro-Rivera, Juhem (2017). "36. A World of Atheism: Global Demographics". In Bullivant, Stephen; Ruse, Michael. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199644659.

    [3] Phil Zuckerman, op cit

    [4] Langdon, comments op cit https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-to-prove-that-god-doesnt-exist/5216/#comment-4156529925
    [5] Joseph hinman, The Trace of God Rational Warrant for Belief. Colorado Springs: Grand Viaduct. 2014. no page indicated.
    https://www.amazon.com/Trace-God-Rational-Warrant-Belief/dp/0982408714

    [5] Joseph Hinman, "The Empirical Study of  Mystical Experience." (2016) Religious A priori http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/10/berninis-ecstasy-of-st.html
    part 2 http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-empirical-study-of-mystical.html










    32 comments:

    im-skeptical said...

    a guy seemed to be arguing because he knows there are no unicorns he knows there's no God.

    You can't prove a negative. I know that unicorns don't exist: I don't need to prove that they don't. It's up to those of the unicorn faith to prove that they do.


    - This is NOT an argument that attempts to prove there is no God. It's not saying what you think is says. It's about burden of proof. He's saying that given the total lack of evidence FOR the existence of unicorns, there is absolutely no reason to think they exist, and we can be reasonably certain that it's true that there are no unicorns. This is a good analogy for God belief. There is a total lack of objective evidence for it, and likewise, no reason for us to think that a god actually exists. But if you think there is a God, then the burden of proof is on you - just as it would be if you insist that there are unicorns. Reasonable people are not obliged to accept your claims unless you show them the evidence for it.

    Now, we all know that you do think there is evidence, but you don't have objective evidence. All you have is private, subjective feelings, and that doesn't qualify as the kind of evidence that reasonable people should find convincing. You need something real that can be examined and evaluated objectively. Furthermore, your "200 studies" don't provide that evidence, either. As I have explained to you over and over again, there are perfectly good natural explanations for everything that is shown in those studies, even if you refuse to accept it, and any legitimate peer-review board would tell you that as they reject the scientific validity of your conclusions.

    Joe Hinman said...

    im-skeptical said...
    a guy seemed to be arguing because he knows there are no unicorns he knows there's no God.

    You can't prove a negative. I know that unicorns don't exist: I don't need to prove that they don't. It's up to those of the unicorn faith to prove that they do.

    - This is NOT an argument that attempts to prove there is no God. It's not saying what you think is says. It's about burden of proof. He's saying that given the total lack of evidence FOR the existence of unicorns, there is absolutely no reason to think they exist, and we can be reasonably certain that it's true that there are no unicorns. This is a good analogy for God belief.


    I disagree. I agree it's not an argent to prove there's no god, it;s not about burden of proof its about the epistemic justification of doubt,which I think he presents a common knowledge,



    There is a total lack of objective evidence for it, and likewise, no reason for us to think that a god actually exists. But if you think there is a God, then the burden of proof is on you - just as it would be if you insist that there are unicorns. Reasonable people are not obliged to accept your claims unless you show them the evidence for it.

    Those may be two sides of the same coin. Either way he is clearly ignorant of the evidence for God arguments, in fact the arguments in the article were merely confined to the standard five proofs,

    Now, we all know that you do think there is evidence, but you don't have objective evidence. All you have is private, subjective feelings, and that doesn't qualify as the kind of evidence that reasonable people should find convincing.

    How would you know? Not only do you not read my book you don't read my arguments when I make them. I've mopped the floor with you over and over again you are just like Trump you jut assert you can;'t lose and ignore reality,

    You need something real that can be examined and evaluated objectively.

    Like the effects of certain experiences on people who have them, Like the target levels f fine tuning for life in the misanthropic principle, like big bang cosmology, like the God part of the brain like the law like regularity of natural law


    Furthermore, your "200 studies" don't provide that evidence, either. As I have explained to you over and over again, there are perfectly good natural explanations for everything that is shown in those studies,

    yea? name one? every single time you have done this little gimmick I;ve beaten the snot out of your allegation and you try to assert that it;s all brain chemistry but you answer my arguments about that.

    I have cleaned your clock every time,You think saying your opihion is proof,



    even if you refuse to accept it, and any legitimate peer-review board would tell you that as they reject the scientific validity of your conclusions.


    you don't even know what they are because uou sto reading when I answer that,

    remember what happened the last time you tried to throw your pretend wait around as a big science guy a real science guy cone on the cadre blog and lauhed you off the board,


    8:01 AM Delete

    Joe Hinman said...

    Skep you are not getting away with ignoring my messiah stuff on Cadre blog

    Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

    I don't know about unicorns and gods, but Bigfoot definitely does not exist. ;)

    im-skeptical said...


    - So you contend that there are no natural explanations for mystical experiences or the correlations between spirituality and beneficial outcomes in life? Joe, I have cited some of what various psychologists have said about these things. First of all, the "experience" itself is indeed an emotional reaction, and all emotions are chemically stimulated. This has ample backing in experimental data. Not only is it possible to induce these experiences by various types of electro-chemical means, but it is also possible to create the same emotional effect by psychological manipulation. As for the positive effects, I explained to you that most psychologists believe there is a common cause (in the psychological outlook of an individual) for BOTH the positive outcomes AND the emotional effect of the "mystical experience". Your problem is that you have limited your analysis to a tiny corner of the scientific community, and you completely ignore mainstream scientific views.

    Skep you are not getting away with ignoring my messiah stuff on Cadre blog
    - You don't even read your own blog. Sad.

    Joe Hinman said...

    Mike aka MonolithTMA said...
    I don't know about unicorns and gods, but Bigfoot definitely does not exist. ;)

    Good to see you Mike did you confuse this with a video game? ;-)

    Joe Hinman said...

    ike aka MonolithTMA said...
    I don't know about unicorns and gods, but Bigfoot definitely does not exist. ;)

    6:54 AM Delete
    Blogger im-skeptical said...

    - So you contend that there are no natural explanations for mystical experiences or the correlations between spirituality and beneficial outcomes in life? Joe, I have cited some of what various psychologists have said about these things.

    Not that there are no naturalistic forces innovated but they do not explain it by themselves,


    First of all, the "experience" itself is indeed an emotional reaction, and all emotions are chemically stimulated. This has ample backing in experimental data.


    Of course the experience is conveyed by chemicals but that is like saying logic is just air waves because logical ideas are conveyed by vibrations of air wave striking the ear drum. The 8 tie breakers make arguments like this does not explain why it's always positive. why it's good for you, why it;s related to a sense of meaning in life, why it has noetic function and so on.

    your fear of emotion is biasing your view so you are not thinking anarchically about these issues,



    Not only is it possible to induce these experiences by various types of electro-chemical means, but it is also possible to create the same emotional effect by psychological manipulation.

    false, (1)no one has proven that, you say that because propaganda tells you it should but you have no evidence. The fact is people who pretend to produce such effects do not use any control mechanism like the M scale so they Make up their own arbitrary criteria we don't know what they are actually producing but all they have produced is the effects they want not mystical experiences.

    (2) If there are chemical receptors that communicate the experiences the false stimulate could open those receptors and produce some similar symptoms but that doesn't mean the total experience is reproduced, just a pleasant sensation may be produced,

    (3)No longitudinal studies show them producing the same kind of effects in life from having the experience induced in lab,




    As for the positive effects, I explained to you that most psychologists believe there is a common cause (in the psychological outlook of an individual) for BOTH the positive outcomes AND the emotional effect of the "mystical experience". Your problem is that you have limited your analysis to a tiny corner of the scientific community, and you completely ignore mainstream scientific views.

    you have it backwards, you cannot produce a single printed source saying that that is your stupid opinion it is totally wrong. First i've never seen any shrink say that, if they do those are the ones who don't do the studies,the who do the studies find significant effects that's close to 200 studies,

    Skep you are not getting away with ignoring my messiah stuff on Cadre blog
    - You don't even read your own blog. Sad.

    you pixie?

    Joe Hinman said...

    Just put it up while I was doing this

    im-skeptical said...

    Just put it up while I was doing this
    - Yeah. like over 24 hours ago. You still haven't read it.

    im-skeptical said...

    you have it backwards, you cannot produce a single printed source saying that that is your stupid opinion it is totally wrong. First i've never seen any shrink say that, if they do those are the ones who don't do the studies,the who do the studies find significant effects that's close to 200 studies
    - I have tried again and again to tell you that the scientific community in general, and psychology in particular, is much larger that the narrow segment you pay attention to (psychology of religion, which is dominated by religious people like Hood). You keep saying there's nothing out there, but there is plenty. You just ignore it because real science doesn't support your conclusions. You need to get out of your little isolated religious bubble and do a real survey of the pertinent scientific information.

    Joe Hinman said...

    im-skeptical said...
    you have it backwards, you cannot produce a single printed source saying that that is your stupid opinion it is totally wrong. First i've never seen any shrink say that, if they do those are the ones who don't do the studies,the who do the studies find significant effects that's close to 200 studies


    - I have tried again and again to tell you that the scientific community in general, and psychology in particular, is much larger that the narrow segment you pay attention to (psychology of religion, which is dominated by religious people like Hood).

    (1) You do not know anything about the field you do not speak for psychologists, you are not documenting it it;s just your little bigoted sophomoric opinion.

    (2) you are willing to take the view of those who don't work in the field over those who do because you are so simplistic in your thinking and paranoid in your hatred of God that you don;t even get that pathology of religion is not religious people definding religion, (I have shown before most of the researchers I know of are not Christians or not religious)

    (3) if this global warning you would be using the pinons of those who don;t study climate to argue against warming


    You keep saying there's nothing out there, but there is plenty. You just ignore it because real science doesn't support your conclusions. You need to get out of your little isolated religious bubble and do a real survey of the pertinent scientific information.

    you still haven;t documented anything just little uninformed pinon

    9:20 AM Delete

    Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

    "Good to see you Mike did you confuse this with a video game? ;-)"

    No, Bigfoot exists in video games. ;)

    im-skeptical said...

    you are willing to take the view of those who don't work in the field over those who do because you are so simplistic in your thinking and paranoid in your hatred of God that you don;t even get that pathology of religion is not religious people definding religion, (I have shown before most of the researchers I know of are not Christians or not religious)
    - It is part of psychology, and secular psychologists (not necessarily in the field of psychology of religion) DO study such things. There is plenty of material on it, and they don't have a goal to link these experiences to God, the way Hood tries to. They are more interested in scientific understanding of the phenomenon. You have claimed that Hood is not religious, but I know that he is. He was the head of a Christian organization.

    Joe Hinman said...


    Blogger Mike aka MonolithTMA said...
    "Good to see you Mike did you confuse this with a video game? ;-)"

    No, Bigfoot exists in video games. ;)

    LOLOLOL ;-)

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


    Blogger Joe Hinman said...
    hey skep

    Blogger im-skeptical said...
    you are willing to take the view of those who don't work in the field over those who do because you are so simplistic in your thinking and paranoid in your hatred of God that you don;t even get that pathology of religion is not religious people definding religion, (I have shown before most of the researchers I know of are not Christians or not religious)


    - It is part of psychology, and secular psychologists (not necessarily in the field of psychology of religion) DO study such things.


    No they don;t, there;s a big difference in reading about something and actually studying it. When one says study in this context it usually means doing a study.

    There is plenty of material on it, and they don't have a goal to link these experiences to God, the way Hood tries to.

    where do you get that idea? Hood never said that. That's your little need to defame and destroy my work to ridicule my source because he says stuff you don't like.since you are not an academic and not a scholar you don't know one can have beliefs and not use them as clandestine motives for research. That tells us a lot more about you than it does Hood,


    They are more interested in scientific understanding of the phenomenon. You have claimed that Hood is not religious, but I know that he is. He was the head of a Christian organization.

    Un cool. Very unprofessional trying to interpret the psychological motives of opponents in argument is very uncool and shows a real lack of professional understanding.

    Hood is considered to be the leading researcher in that field, you know nothing about that field. it is not dominated by fundies or Christians or believers. I;ve told you hes not a fundie he's not a Christian grow up,

    you are trying to think of this as a war, you are seeking to destroy belief, That is childish

    im-skeptical said...

    No they don;t, there;s a big difference in reading about something and actually studying it. When one says study in this context it usually means doing a study.
    - Not only do they study it, they do full-blown scientific investigation, including experimental work.

    where do you get that idea? Hood never said that.
    - Of course he doesn't come out and admit what he's doing. What do you think the M-scale does? It is a tool invented by a religious person to filter any non-religious interpretation out from peak experiences. It is designed to look only at the religious aspect of this phenomenon, and pretend that this gives you a full understanding of it.

    Un cool. Very unprofessional trying to interpret the psychological motives of opponents in argument is very uncool and shows a real lack of professional understanding.
    - I'll remember that the next time you say my arguments are determined by my attitude as a God-hater (which is something you tell me on a regular basis).

    Hood is considered to be the leading researcher in that field, you know nothing about that field. it is not dominated by fundies or Christians or believers. I;ve told you hes not a fundie he's not a Christian grow up
    - He is a leader if the narrow field of psychology of religion. And that supports my point that the field is dominated by religious people. True, many of them are not Christians, and I never said they were. True, there are even some atheists in the field. But in the broader area of psychology in general, Hood and his cohorts have virtually no impact whatsoever.

    you are trying to think of this as a war, you are seeking to destroy belief, That is childish
    - I didn't have to wait very long to recall you telling me that it it is childish to "interpret the psychological motives of opponents in argument".

    Joe Hinman said...


    Blogger im-skeptical said...
    No they don;t, there;s a big difference in reading about something and actually studying it. When one says study in this context it usually means doing a study.
    - Not only do they study it, they do full-blown scientific investigation, including experimental work.

    that's a contrition in terms. such a studies are automatically counted as psychology of religion

    where do you get that idea? Hood never said that.

    - Of course he doesn't come out and admit what he's doing. What do you think the M-scale does? It is a tool invented by a religious person to filter any non-religious interpretation out from peak experiences.

    But you know all about it anyway hu? you can read his secret motives hu? all religious people are the same aren't they? It's pretty clear how daft your position is



    It is designed to look only at the religious aspect of this phenomenon, and pretend that this gives you a full understanding of it.

    quote a passage from Hood's work to justify that? or do you get it y osmosis?

    Un cool. Very unprofessional trying to interpret the psychological motives of opponents in argument is very uncool and shows a real lack of professional understanding.
    - I'll remember that the next time you say my arguments are determined by my attitude as a God-hater (which is something you tell me on a regular basis).

    I at least I read a lot of things you write, you have read nothing of Hood, you have no idea what he says,you just do a guilt by association trip on him.

    Hood is considered to be the leading researcher in that field, you know nothing about that field. it is not dominated by fundies or Christians or believers. I've told you hes not a fundie he's not a Christian grow up

    - He is a leader if the narrow field of psychology of religion. And that supports my point that the field is dominated by religious people.

    and here comes Skepie rounding the corner,yes Friends it's another perfect circle of reason. Hood is religious because he's leader in a field that is headed by a egregious person,himself,that proves he's religious.


    It says psychology of religion so of course you are too stupid to examine the field for itself you just see the religious and word "religious" bells ring and whistles go off a red fla covers your eyes you see stars and start going "reilgiuusrelignhateerlgiion fight religion, hate religiond OOOOOOOOO gAAAAAAAAAAA




    True, many of them are not Christians, and I never said they were. True, there are even some atheists in the field. But in the broader area of psychology in general, Hood and his cohorts have virtually no impact whatsoever.

    but of course Hood must be because I'm quoting him. say who are his cohearts dumb ass? you really think he;s some kind of moral majority guy.

    you are trying to think of this as a war, you are seeking to destroy belief, That is childish
    - I didn't have to wait very long to recall you telling me that it it is childish to "interpret the psychological motives of opponents in argument".

    you area very stupid person stop wasting my time

    10:03 AM Delete

    Joe Hinman said...

    Image result for Ralph Hood Jr. psychology of religion

    this is about the Cosmological argument not about Hood or the studies my book is about,

    im-skeptical said...

    that's a contrition in terms. such a studies are automatically counted as psychology of religion
    - NO THEY AREN'T. This just goes to show how blind you are to everything except your own narrow view. Peak experiences are not exclusively religious. There's more to it than that. But you and Hood want to turn them into something that is exclusively religious. Real psychologists look at this from a broader perspective. It isn't focused exclusively on religion, although the often-times religious aspect of it is not ignored. You exclude everything BUT the religious aspect. Hood's M-scale is designed to do just that. I've told you this again and again, but you're so blind to everything but your narrow one-dimensional view of the world, you just refuse to see it.

    you can read his secret motives hu?
    - There's nothing secret about it. That's what the M-scale does. This isn't a question of motives. It's just the function of the M-scale, that is plainly visible to anyone who looks at it.

    I at least I read a lot of things you write, you have read nothing of Hood, you have no idea what he says,you just do a guilt by association trip on him.
    - Your reading is confined to things that support your a priori beliefs.

    Hood is religious because he's leader in a field that is headed by a egregious person,himself,that proves he's religious.
    - Hood is a leader in a small corner of psychology, which is comprised largely of religious people, and outside that little group, receives little attention by the vast majority of psychologists.

    you area very stupid person stop wasting my time
    - Joe, I would be happy to ignore your religious ranting. But you keep making scientific claims that aren't true. Just two days ago, you made the ridiculous claim that Kepler proved there was a real astronomical event that came to be known as the star of Bethlehem. NO, HE DIDN'T. You don't understand the article you were quoting from just like you don't understand things you read about quantum physics, or cosmology, are anything else. And that includes much of the material in psychology of religion, too. Because if you really understood it, you wouldn't be so bold about making your claims of "empirical evidence that provides warrant for belief" in God. Even the religious people in that field don't make claims like that. I don't like to see scientifically ignorant statements go unchallenged.

    Joe Hinman said...

    NO THEY AREN'T. This just goes to show how blind you are to everything except your own narrow view. Peak experiences are not exclusively religious.

    I didn't say Einstein, I said if they study religion it is the psychology of religion. That's tautological. you have not read a single on this topic. you know nothing about it,you are an atheiod so you cant haeve a valid opinion,


    There's more to it than that. But you and Hood want to turn them into something that is exclusively religious.

    you lying little phony. Hood never said that and neither have I, you have not read one damn thing by either of us.I have wiener at length about atheist mystical experiences.



    Real psychologists look at this from a broader perspective.

    you know nothing about them.


    im-skeptical said...

    I didn't say Einstein, I said if they study religion it is the psychology of religion. That's tautological.
    - We were talking about the psychology of peak experiences. You call them "mystical experiences" because of your limited perspective. I quote you directly: "such a studies are automatically counted as psychology of religion". I'm telling you that if you get outside your little religious bubble, you can see that this phenomenon is NOT strictly religious. It is only people like you, who have a one-dimensional view, who can't see anything outside the one dimension of your religious perspective, who insist that this phenomenon must be "counted as psychology of religion". Get outside the bubble and open your eyes. There is so much more to the world than your one religious dimension. And the broader field of psychology has so much more information and scientific understanding to offer than the limited view that you get from psychology of religion.

    you lying little phony. Hood never said that and neither have I
    - I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you tell me what the M-scale is good for - what purpose it serves. Then we can discuss it further.

    Joe Hinman said...



    JoeI didn't say Einstein, I said if they study religion it is the psychology of religion. That's tautological.


    Skep:- We were talking about the psychology of peak experiences. You call them "mystical experiences" because of your limited perspective. I quote you directly: "such a studies are automatically counted as psychology of religion". I'm telling you that if you get outside your little religious bubble, you can see that this phenomenon is NOT strictly religious.

    You didn't even read my answer did you? as I said above, I wrote about it at length in the Trace of God, atheists do have mystical experience, Here;s another thing it is not that mystical experience is religious and peak experience is not, they are the same thing, Maslow used the term peach experience but he wrote about religious experience in the same book and discussed both under both titles.

    If you did a study of just atheists and called it peak experience you are still going to have your study indexed in psychology of religion it is in that field by default just by being in contra distinction to religious experience.



    It is only people like you, who have a one-dimensional view, who can't see anything outside the one dimension of your religious perspective, who insist that this phenomenon must be "counted as psychology of religion".

    the irony is when I was an atheist I was a smarter atheist than you are. I'm a better secular scholar than you could be. My Ph.D. program was secular I was better at it than you ever would be.


    Get outside the bubble and open your eyes. There is so much more to the world than your one religious dimension. And the broader field of psychology has so much more information and scientific understanding to offer than the limited view that you get from psychology of religion.

    stop trying to mythologize people according to stupid stereo types. Specking of getting out and working in the world why are you not doing political work against Trump? If you are why are you keeping it a secret here? You know I am in the resistance I work on it all the time, why are you not?

    you lying little phony. Hood never said that and neither have I

    - I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you tell me what the M-scale is good for - what purpose it serves. Then we can discuss it further.

    you basically just admitted that you have never read the myriad stuff I;ve written to you about it so Im not going to do that again, go buy the book or just shut up about it,

    5:31 PM Delete

    im-skeptical said...

    as I said above, I wrote about it at length in the Trace of God, atheists do have mystical experience, Here;s another thing it is not that mystical experience is religious and peak experience is not, they are the same thing, Maslow used the term peach experience but he wrote about religious experience in the same book and discussed both under both titles.as I said above, I wrote about it at length in the Trace of God, atheists do have mystical experience, Here;s another thing it is not that mystical experience is religious and peak experience is not, they are the same thing, Maslow used the term peach experience but he wrote about religious experience in the same book and discussed both under both titles.
    - Yes. That's what I've been telling you. Maslow was an atheist, and he used the term "peak experience", which is how it is called OUTSIDE the field of psychology of religion, precisely because general psychology recognizes that this is not confined to religious experience. Maslow's field was NOT psychology of religion, and that contradicts your claim that this whole field of study is within psychology of religion. IT ISN'T. There are many other psychologists outside the narrow field of psychology of religion who examine this phenomenon. That's what I've been telling you.

    If you did a study of just atheists and called it peak experience you are still going to have your study indexed in psychology of religion it is in that field by default just by being in contra distinction to religious experience.
    - There you go with the one-dimensional view again. To psychologists, it's not about religion. It's about human experience and psychology. It may or may not involve a religious aspect. It's only your narrow view that confines it to that religious perspective.

    the irony is when I was an atheist I was a smarter atheist than you are. I'm a better secular scholar than you could be. My Ph.D. program was secular I was better at it than you ever would be.
    - How childish. "I'm smarter than you are". You don't have a PhD, and you really should stop boasting about it. But any idiot can get a PhD in a bible college. It doesn't mean you are more intelligent than a ditch digger.

    Specking of getting out and working in the world why are you not doing political work against Trump? If you are why are you keeping it a secret here? You know I am in the resistance I work on it all the time, why are you not?
    - I don't answer to you for what I do. You have no idea.

    you basically just admitted that you have never read the myriad stuff I;ve written to you about it so Im not going to do that again, go buy the book or just shut up about it
    - No, Joe. You disagree with what I have said about it, but you haven't given any specific reason, so I'm just trying to clarify the issue. State your view, and then we can see where it differs from mine. If you can't do that, that I can only assume that you don't understand your own claims.

    Joe Hinman said...

    Yea real childish ,this guy is damaged he can;t allow himself to even consider the opinion of any Apuleius thinker regardless of how revered. that is not normal. That is not adult thinking. It also means there's no point in discussing anything because he can't even canonize any point I make,I have to be wrong a proiroi. why talk?

    Joe Hinman said...

    the whole idea that all religious people are alike they all have one motive and its bad, I can stick atheists with that same thing, that never occurred to him I guess,

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

    This is what happens every time. I challenge you on some specific point or claim that you make. You divert from the topic, resort to ad hominem attacks, and NEVER address the issue that I raise with a substantive response. Why can't you just tell me what's wrong with my assessment of the M-scale? Then we could have a rational discussion about it? But it is obvious that you don't want that. It would be reasonable for anyone to conclude that you don't have a worthwhile answer for the objections I raise.

    And then you put the whole thing to rest by declaring "THIS THREAD IS CLOSED."

    Joe Hinman said...

    m-skeptical said...
    This is what happens every time. I challenge you on some specific point or claim that you make. You divert from the topic, resort to ad hominem attacks, and NEVER address the issue that I raise with a substantive response.

    that is ludicrously stupid, you never deal with the real issue of the post.Your stuff is never challenging,just opinionated. You don't read the actual OP so you never challenge any specifics on anything. you still have not read a single study, you claim to have but you cantnameone,

    As for ad hom you refuse to accept any religious person however revered as an authority on anything even their own beliefs because all religious people are untrustworthy and biased, then you want to say I am doing adhom. I said there is no point in talking at that rate you have not given me a reason to think there is




    Why can't you just tell me what's wrong with my assessment of the M-scale?


    Because it's not based upon the actual empirical work it doesn't use any data or methodological attack it's entirely opinionated and revolves around your prejudices agaisnt religious people being able to think correctly.



    Then we could have a rational discussion about it? But it is obvious that you don't want that. It would be reasonable for anyone to conclude that you don't have a worthwhile answer for the objections I raise.

    when you start giving me real methodological indictments then we can discuss,

    And then you put the whole thing to rest by declaring "THIS THREAD IS CLOSED."

    where did not say that on this thread,? I should because you have nothing to say that you haven't already said, but I haven't done it,

    im-skeptical said...

    that is ludicrously stupid, you never deal with the real issue of the post.
    - Read my first comment here. It directly addresses the topic of the post. The fact is, that's the way I typically begin with my comments. After that, the conversation tends to wander off in other directions, but that's not my fault. I go where the conversation leads. If you want to stick to a particular topic, then why don't you?

    As for ad hom you refuse to accept any religious person however revered as an authority on anything even their own beliefs because all religious people are untrustworthy and biased, then you want to say I am doing adhom. I said there is no point in talking at that rate you have not given me a reason to think there is
    - I don't think you even realize that you are constantly engaging in ad hominem attacks. But you do it all the time. And don't try to blame it on me. If you disagree with what I say, then present your case instead of attacking me. And stop misrepresenting what I say. You never take my words at face value. You always try to turn them into something other than what I said.

    Because it's not based upon the actual empirical work it doesn't use any data or methodological attack it's entirely opinionated and revolves around your prejudices agaisnt religious people being able to think correctly.
    - So tell me what it's really about, and how I got it wrong. If you don't know, then be man enough to admit it.

    when you start giving me real methodological indictments then we can discuss
    - I was discussing the purpose of the M-scale, not its methodology. Tell me how I got it wrong. If you don't know the answer, then be man enough to admit it.

    where did not say that on this thread,?
    - Didn't you read my comment? I was talking about what you typically do. It's about how YOU avoid substantive discussion when I present you with issues that you can't answer (just like you are doing now on the M-scale). It's true.

    Joe Hinman said...

    we have a new post up so i;, closing this one, the new one is about you check it out.

    LINK


    Joe Hinman said...

    I was discussing the purpose of the M-scale, not its methodology. Tell me how I got it wrong. If you don't know the answer, then be man enough to admit it.

    your idea of it's purpose is delusional it's based upon a silly idea of Hood having a hidden agenda,I discuss the purpose of it oddly enough in the opening paragraph of the new post,