tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post1601657732955331459..comments2024-03-18T11:13:57.904-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Reflections upon Methodology and ScienceJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12171467460023322752010-08-27T17:57:24.870-07:002010-08-27T17:57:24.870-07:00"when I say it's not proof, I am NOT sayi...<i>"when I say it's not proof, I am NOT saying therefore, it's stupid, untrue and you shouldn't believe it.<br /><br />When you say it's not proof, you are saying those things."</i><br /><br />i think any honest reader of this conversation will find that YOU are the one who continually resorts to ridicule and insults; saying that my opinions (which you never confront directly, preferring to attack straw men) are stupid, the product of an inability to think, "bullshit" etc. etc.<br /><br />you said earlier <i>"you still refuse to look for or understand Maslow's statment "the religious bleiever and the atheist can go quite a ways down the path together"</i><br /><br />Well that's actually what I had hoped to do here. But I can never seem to get past this anger of yours...A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-46465642020861880382010-08-27T16:12:20.086-07:002010-08-27T16:12:20.086-07:00"When you say it's not proof, you are say...<i>"When you say it's not proof, you are saying those things."</i><br /><br />Where have you ever seen me say such a thing? Really? I think you're just projecting your own bad attitude here.<br /><br /><i>"Not equally. Because you can't beat any of the arguments."</i><br /><br />and you ignore or misrepresent or misinterpret all of my arguments...you're too stubborn and blinded by your ideology (you "good little soldier" you...) to give the other point of view fair consideration.<br /><br />Hypocrite.A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85920798848275347982010-08-27T03:28:02.718-07:002010-08-27T03:28:02.718-07:00Yes, I get that; so why do you get so upset when I...Yes, I get that; so why do you get so upset when I agree that it's not proof?<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>when I say it's not proof, I am NOT saying therefore, it's stupid, untrue and you shouldn't believe it.<br /><br />When you say it's not proof, you are saying those things.</b><br /><br />" it's warranted to understand it as the trace of god."<br /><br />And it's equally warranted to understand it as a product of our humanity.<br /><br /><b>Not equally. Because you can't beat any of the arguments.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85046624503280853952010-08-26T18:10:19.668-07:002010-08-26T18:10:19.668-07:00" It's not about proof remember its' ...<i>" It's not about proof remember its' about warrant."</i><br /><br />Yes, I get that; so why do you get so upset when I agree that it's not proof?<br /><br /><i>" it's warranted to understand it as the trace of god."</i><br /><br />And it's equally warranted to understand it as a product of our humanity.<br /><br />So where does that leave us?A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49826314856815227512010-08-25T18:23:33.003-07:002010-08-25T18:23:33.003-07:00There's also no evidence that anything other t...There's also no evidence that anything other than natural processes need to be involved.<br /><br /><b>I've given ample reason to think so. It's not about proof remember its' about warrant. it's warranted to understand it as the trace of god.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75392216062031566722010-08-25T17:13:59.021-07:002010-08-25T17:13:59.021-07:00"In reality you have not proof of any kind th...<i>"In reality you have not proof of any kind that Brain chemistry alone could produce religious experiences, let alone the effects of them on the individual. you are merely asserting that a naturalistic element in the process has to be proof that everything in it is naturalistic and you don't have that proof at all."</i><br /><br />There's also no evidence that anything other than natural processes need to be involved.<br /><br />This is typical of how you misrepresent and then dismiss contrary opinions. I haven't claimed that "brain chemistry alone" produces the experience; I think it's an emergent product of a much more complex interaction of natural processes.A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49544120828408310032010-08-20T13:32:57.784-07:002010-08-20T13:32:57.784-07:00your allege explainations are half asses. you find...your allege explainations are half asses. you find a naturalistic process related to the reviving of an experience and you assert that every single thing about it is just a naturalistic side effect of brain chemistry.<br /><br />In reality you have not proof of any kind that Brain chemistry alone could produce religious experiences, let alone the effects of them on the individual. you are merely asserting that a naturalistic element in the process has to be proof that everything in it is naturalistic and you don't have that proof at all.<br /><br /><br />old atheist trick to assert anything natural in any way shape or form proves that the whole thing is natural, BUT it does not.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59474752399832734442010-08-20T13:29:49.880-07:002010-08-20T13:29:49.880-07:00"(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural
Exac..."(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural<br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br /><b>Exactly wrong. You have to learn to see God in the natural. you can't continue to deal with the false straw man religious view atheists have concocted you have to learn the real theology that actual theologians use.</b><br /><br />"(2) God works in nature in a natural way because God created nature"<br /><br />How does God suddenly come into the picture? Nature works in a natural way; there's no need to posit anything other than nature here.<br /><br /><br /><b>it's not a matter of "need to" it's a matter of what is. what is is based upon global understanding of truth not just a reductionistic ideology of atheism.<br /><br />you are assuming that scinece = absolute knowledge. Science is relative, cultural, discoverable. Science is not epistemology.<br /><br />categories f natural and supernatural and man made, they not revealed by God in the Bible. The Bible doesn't use them.<br /><br />Man decided to sweep God out of the picture and designed his vocabulary to fit that ideology.</b><br /><br />"(3) that can only work as an argument if there's still something about the phenomena that nature alone can't produce"<br /><br /><br /><b>exactly, and there is, that's why we can't just leave it at naturism. God is working in nature.</b><br /><br />I'm not convinced that you have demonstrated that this is the case.<br /><br /><b>you have still failed to come up with any explanation for the results or effects of RE.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />"that "something" is the results, the effects (not the experience itself but result of having had it) and the inability to explain them by naturism and the extreme improbability of the whole process working by accident."<br /><br />It seems to me that they are quite easily explained by natural processes; <br /><br /><br /><b>Have disproved every snigle one of the alternatives.<br /><br />(1) researchers who claim to produce RE in the lab do not use the M scale so they can't prove they did.<br /><br />(2) brain chemistry can't be proved to produce RE because without the M scale youc an't prove you produced it.<br /><br />(3) you are ignori9jng what I said about the total improbability of a misfire or overload in relation to the effects.</b><br /><br /><br />certainly my own experiences make more sense to me when understood as emergent from natural interactions. Nature, bu the way, doesn't work purely by "accident," that's an old creationist canard. Undirected is not the same as accidental.<br /><br /><br /><b>you can't 'show anything that we know that would produce such effects.<br /><br />(1) it's not a natural agent from outside like egot poisoning.<br /><br />(2) not mental illness<br /><br />(3) you can't demonstrate a single ting that produces long term postiive effects in that level of drama universallly in every cutlure with same kinds of experinces, that's un heard of. <br /><br />It's one a kind, it's an amazing thing. you have no evidence to explain it at all.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7255233867700763232010-08-20T09:40:49.051-07:002010-08-20T09:40:49.051-07:00"(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural
Exac...<i>"(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural</i><br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br /><i>"(2) God works in nature in a natural way because God created nature"</i><br /><br />How does God suddenly come into the picture? Nature works in a natural way; there's no need to posit anything other than nature here. <br /><br /><i>"(3) that can only work as an argument if there's still something about the phenomena that nature alone can't produce"</i><br /><br />I'm not convinced that you have demonstrated that this is the case.<br /><br /><i>"that "something" is the results, the effects (not the experience itself but result of having had it) and the inability to explain them by naturism and the extreme improbability of the whole process working by accident.</i>"<br /><br />It seems to me that they are quite easily explained by natural processes; certainly my own experiences make more sense to me when understood as emergent from natural interactions. Nature, bu the way, doesn't work purely by "accident," that's an old creationist canard. Undirected is not the same as accidental.A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33231251253140679152010-08-20T09:31:12.017-07:002010-08-20T09:31:12.017-07:00"you need to distinction what you are talking...<i>"you need to distinction what you are talking about.You are just using terms like "proof" as though there's one thing only that needs proving. The studies prove a lot of things. I say the prove this and that you have to be careful about what you claiming they don't prove. they prove a lot."</i><br /><br />I think you keep missing the point; I'll try again. We're talking about the demand that atheists make for proof God's existence. Whatever your studies might or might not prove they do not prove God's existence. I think we are in agreement on that point?A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55580433267907539332010-08-20T04:23:50.878-07:002010-08-20T04:23:50.878-07:00A Hermit said...
I think I asked a reasonable...A Hermit said...<br /><br /> I think I asked a reasonable question; if you're incapable of answering without resorting to insults I guess that tells us all we really need to know.... <br /><br /><b>I don't know where it went. Sometimes these comments just disappear.<br /><br />There was one about natural causes for the phenomena of RE. I don't see where that wound up but it said it was published.<br /><br />The point is I did argue that just because there's a naturalistic connection to the phenomena doesn't prove that the cause is totally naturalistic.<br /><br />the atheist assumption is that RE is miraculous, that it can't have any naturalistic connection because its' a miracle. I said:<br /><br />(1) it is not a miracle, it is natural<br /><br />(2) God works in nature in a natural way because God created nature<br /><br />(3) that can only work as an argument if there's still something about the phenomena that nature alone can't produce, but the process does not have to be totally void of naturalistic elements.<br /><br />that "something" is the results, the effects (not the experience itself but result of having had it) and the inability to explain them by naturism and the extreme improbability of the whole process working by accident.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14425486203944636222010-08-20T04:14:11.055-07:002010-08-20T04:14:11.055-07:00I meant to say "they DON"T have to prove...I meant to say "they DON"T have to prove that (that RE is the on kind of transformational experience). Sorry.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54495024261225962132010-08-20T04:12:40.060-07:002010-08-20T04:12:40.060-07:00A Hermit said...
"they don't have to...A Hermit said...<br /><br /> "they don't have to PROVE it! you keep forgetting Thtat rational warrant thing."<br /><br /> I would be more persuaded by this if you didn't always act as if they DID prove it and throw these hissy fits when someone like me isn't as impressed with that rational warrant as you are. <br /><br /><b>you need to distinction what you are talking about.You are just using terms like "proof" as though there's one thing only that needs proving. The studies prove a lot of things. I say the prove this and that you have to be careful about what you claiming they don't prove. they prove a lot.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />On the one hand you insist that God's existence can't be proved by the scientific method then you turn around and berate me for not accepting your 200 allegedly empirical studies as a good enough reason for me to believe in God. Which is it?<br /><br /><br /><b>why are they only "alleged" to be empirical when they are published in academic peer reviewed journals and the journals say they are empirical?<br /><br />that's the kind of little trick that pisses me off. If we were in high school debate I would say your argument is "greasy." </b><br /><br /> I have rational warrant for my continued suspension of belief in the existence of God.<br /><br /><br /><b>Maybe</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> Calling me irrational, accusing me of "bullshit" and insulting my intelligence because I don't blindly accept your interpretation of those studies isn't likely to convince me you're right... <br /><br /><br /><b>I called one specific thing bull shit, Saying one of your arugments is irrational is tno the same as saying you are irrational.<br /><br />I think a lot of these problems are cultural. You just can't understand the way Texans talk.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88910301586563609802010-08-20T04:06:01.609-07:002010-08-20T04:06:01.609-07:00But they don't prove that ONLY religion = tran...But they don't prove that ONLY religion = transformative power OR that religious feeling is a product of anything outside our own humanity.<br /><br /><b>they have to prove that.I never said religion is the only tranformative thing, but transformation is not just "getting happy" you can't minimize the importance of it by the joys of baseball or apple pie.</b><br /><br />Are we going to talk like adults or are you going to keep shouting and cursing at me?<br /><br /><b>that's so childish. I have answering you right along in about 20 exchanges and I didn't do any of that.That's the kind of bull shit personal attack that God you banned before.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-41521371839861056532010-08-19T18:58:21.197-07:002010-08-19T18:58:21.197-07:00I think I asked a reasonable question; if you'...I think I asked a reasonable question; if you're incapable of answering without resorting to insults I guess that tells us all we really need to know....A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81623703293328220462010-08-19T08:52:37.029-07:002010-08-19T08:52:37.029-07:00good soldier hermit. He's back against the wal...good soldier hermit. He's back against the wall, he's been reminded he doesn't' have an argument now it's to talk about how bad I am.<br /><br />I've already explained how to deal with the crushing earth shattering dilemma of people with views contrary to may own having their own rational warrant. Read what i said above. you haven ot said anything to refute it.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86204791950297972682010-08-19T08:27:08.581-07:002010-08-19T08:27:08.581-07:00"they don't have to PROVE it! you keep fo...<i>"they don't have to PROVE it! you keep forgetting Thtat rational warrant thing."</i><br /><br />I would be more persuaded by this if you didn't always act as if they DID prove it and throw these hissy fits when someone like me isn't as impressed with that rational warrant as you are. On the one hand you insist that God's existence can't be proved by the scientific method then you turn around and berate me for not accepting your 200 allegedly empirical studies as a good enough reason for me to believe in God. Which is it?<br /><br />I have rational warrant for my continued suspension of belief in the existence of God. Calling me irrational, accusing me of "bullshit" and insulting my intelligence because I don't blindly accept your interpretation of those studies isn't likely to convince me you're right...A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-20674240157075236802010-08-19T04:13:43.870-07:002010-08-19T04:13:43.870-07:00they don't have to PROVE it! you keep forgetti...they don't have to PROVE it! you keep forgetting Thtat rational warrant thing.<br /><br />that's why arguments with atheists go in circles. you can't just accept that your rejection of belief is wrong and it's logical and rational to believe. you can't demonstrate it's irrational so you always have to forget the rational warrant clause and move it back to the level of proof because the only one and only thing atheists have going for them is the lack of ABSOLUTE poof.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4021545345137788062010-08-18T17:48:57.913-07:002010-08-18T17:48:57.913-07:00"THEY ALL PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT RELIGION = ...<i>"THEY ALL PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT RELIGION = TRANSFORMATIVE POWER."</i><br /><br />But they don't prove that ONLY religion = transformative power OR that religious feeling is a product of anything outside our own humanity.<br /><br />Are we going to talk like adults or are you going to keep shouting and cursing at me?A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8098611523657074732010-08-18T06:22:52.281-07:002010-08-18T06:22:52.281-07:00I do understand how to extrapolate, and I'm no...I do understand how to extrapolate, and I'm not demanding a single conclusive proof. But I don't accept your extrapolation as definitive or persuasive enough to convince me that God is the only explanation. There are other possible explanations and it seems to me that you are too quick to dismiss them.<br /><br /><br /><b>Your attitude is totally outrageous and highlight your self centers inability to think fairly while demanding that you are the very soul of tolerance.<br /><br />Here I have demonstrated, with a huge unprecedented body of scientific work, hundreds of PEER REVIEWED STUDIES do understand how to extrapolate, and I'm not demanding a single conclusive proof. But I don't accept your extrapolation as definitive or persuasive enough to convince me that God is the only explanation. There are other possible explanations and it seems to me that you are too quick to dismiss them. PUBLISHED IN ACADEMIC JOURNALS <br /><br />THEY ALL PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THAT RELIGION = TRANSFORMATIVE POWER.<br /><br />YOU STILL WANT TO PRETEND THAT ITS' JUST MY LITTLE FUCKED UP MIND THAT IS PSYCHING ITSELF INT OT THINKING i HAD A GOOD TIME!</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89723064679891102912010-08-17T09:38:19.782-07:002010-08-17T09:38:19.782-07:00"that's bull shit and you know it."
...<i>"that's bull shit and you know it."</i><br /><br />It's not bullshit; it's just inconvenient for you, but your intolerance of people with different opinions is not a very persuasive argument.<br /><br /><i>"I recognize you probalby had spiritual experiences. I'm talking about chruch. You basically admitted you have never really experienced the charismatic thing in a chruch the way I have."</i><br /><br />Exactly; because I'm not you; my experiences have been different from yours and my interpretation of those experiences is also different; not less valid, not "bullshit" just different.<br /><br /><i>"(10 the effects are real so the cause must be real."</i><br /><br />The question then is; what is the cause...<br /><br /><i>"(2) I disprove the counter causes so it has to be God because that's all that's left."</i><br /><br />I don't think you have. Certainly not for my experiences. Quantum Troll answered this better than I can in your Doxa forum.<br /><br /><i>"the only reason you think i have to have a study to say "this is God" instead of extrapolating from the data is because you are so caught up in the atheist ideology of thing hood that you can't understand how to extrapolate form data, you have to have a white lab coat guy to give you permission to think."</i><br /><br />I do understand how to extrapolate, and I'm not demanding a single conclusive proof. But I don't accept your extrapolation as definitive or persuasive enough to convince me that God is the only explanation. There are other possible explanations and it seems to me that you are too quick to dismiss them.<br /><br />And now that you've once again chosen to become abusive and dismissive instead of thoughtfully considering what I have to say I think it's best to end this here.A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42841631304313145672010-08-17T09:05:57.013-07:002010-08-17T09:05:57.013-07:00Whole point of the studies backing Thomas Reid arg...Whole point of the studies backing Thomas Reid argument is this:<br /><br />proves the criteria works and that RE fits the criteria that proves we can trust RE. <br /><br />The point of studies in the the Co determinate argument is that they demonstrate the result of having the experience and that is important because it indicates that the experience is real, thus it is an experience of soemthing real.<br /><br />(10 the effects are real so the cause must be real.<br /><br />(2) I disprove the counter causes so it has to be God because that's all that's left.<br /><br />the only reason you think i have to have a study to say "this is God" instead of extrapolating from the data is because you are so caught up in the atheist ideology of thing hood that you can't understand how to extrapolate form data, you have to have a white lab coat guy to give you permission to think.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37649448787406052602010-08-17T09:02:18.577-07:002010-08-17T09:02:18.577-07:00there's a ton of evidence, not proof but evide...there's a ton of evidence, not proof but evidence. it's given all the time. Most of them time the answers atheists give are stupid, self serving, dishonest, ignorant and so on."<br /><br />How open minded of you...I've seen how you react to any serious attempt to answer your arguments...with insults like those above. We're talking about subjective evidence; by definition open to different interpretations and points of view. A different point of view is not necessarily "self serving, dishonest, ignorant..."<br /><br /><br /><b>that's bull shit and you know it. Most of the time you and other atheists as well try to muddle your way out of the argument because you can't answer them. There are almost no attempts of atheists don't involve argument incredulity, argument from analogy and muddle.<br /><br />yes there are some but not that many. Even the "great one" Hans the teacher man guru of carm atheism argues like simple minded snake oil salesman most of the time. He's really gotten bad. In the old days he really put a lot of effort into making the show seem important but now he doesn't even try.<br /><br />he's probalby as sick of me as I am of him.</b><br /><br />"That depends upon where you are coming from.. you are comparing a spiritual dead chruch experience to living spiritual experience. those apples and oranges."<br /><br />You still completely misunderstand my story; I had spiritual experiences. I interpret them differently from the way you do. You accuse others of dishonesty, yet don't seem to be able to make an honest attempt yourself to appreciate an alternative point of view.<br /><br /><br /><b>I recognize you probalby had spiritual experiences. I'm talking about chruch. You basically admitted you have never really experienced the charismatic thing in a chruch the way I have. I know you have been to them that's not the same thing.</b><br /><br />"you are asserting that the spiritual experience wont work because the dead experience didn't work."<br /><br />On the cont4rary; the experience was NOT dead, it DID work, but God had nothing to do with it.<br /><br /><br /><b>that's just bull shit. it could only be God it can't be anything else.</b><br /><br />"I got studies."<br /><br />Which inform us that people have transcendent experiences, not that God was responsible for those experiences.<br /><br /><b>No, they prove that the results are real and that gives us a good reason to think that it is God.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51274001422483003912010-08-16T14:47:41.839-07:002010-08-16T14:47:41.839-07:00"there's a ton of evidence, not proof but...<i>"there's a ton of evidence, not proof but evidence. it's given all the time. Most of them time the answers atheists give are stupid, self serving, dishonest, ignorant and so on."</i><br /><br />How open minded of you...I've seen how you react to any serious attempt to answer your arguments...with insults like those above. We're talking about subjective evidence; by definition open to different interpretations and points of view. A different point of view is not necessarily "self serving, dishonest, ignorant..."<br /><br /><i>"That depends upon where you are coming from.. you are comparing a spiritual dead chruch experience to living spiritual experience. those apples and oranges."</i><br /><br />You still completely misunderstand my story; I had spiritual experiences. I interpret them differently from the way you do. You accuse others of dishonesty, yet don't seem to be able to make an honest attempt yourself to appreciate an alternative point of view.<br /><br /><i>"you are asserting that the spiritual experience wont work because the dead experience didn't work."</i><br /><br />On the cont4rary; the experience was NOT dead, it DID work, but God had nothing to do with it.<br /><br /><i>"I got studies."</i><br /><br />Which inform us that people have transcendent experiences, not that God was responsible for those experiences.A Hermitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30500122844059207792010-08-16T12:49:00.651-07:002010-08-16T12:49:00.651-07:00I can't rely on your subjective, emotional exp...I can't rely on your subjective, emotional experience to inform me reliably about the existence of God.<br /><br /><br /><b>you don't have to, I got studies.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com