tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post539901739818486269..comments2024-03-28T08:35:59.048-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Bogus Atheist Social Science: Zuckerman's Simplistic Analysis part 1Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-52141674557334512192010-08-12T10:09:24.055-07:002010-08-12T10:09:24.055-07:00Wow! what a great discussion! Never seen anything ...Wow! what a great discussion! Never seen anything like it.<br />Let's do a quick survey.<br />Christian Nations: USA, Europe - high SES; more recently less religious and less happy and less monied.<br />China - increasinly Christian and higher SES<br />Singapore - mixed, but funding a lion's share of Christian missions in Asia, GDP way up<br />USSR and satellite nations - atheist, unhappy, low SES, and governments no longer exist<br />(btw the one that I know of that was industrialized, Czeckoslovakia had lowered SES)<br />Africa - low SES traditionally, but converting to Christianity recently<br />India - reported high on happiness, it is a very religious nation, lower castes converting to Christianity now<br />Middle Eastern Nations - mixed SES, mixed religiosity<br /><br />So a) hard to measure happiness, but studies do show that in US at any rate is related to SES, also studies show that culture influences<br />b) better to distinguish KIND of religiosity<br />c) real research will be better than spins or even informal tours like I gave.<br /><br />I observe that Judeo-Christian perspective has long de-mystified the religion of surrounding cultures (e.g. Genesis one : "lights in the sky" not beings who control your destiny) and further, very much contrary to atheist carping, has always been friendly to the rise of science. It was, after all, from Christian Europe that modern science arose. The Roman church had observatories in Gallileo's day - so it is NOT a correct reading to suggest that religion must and has always suppressed science. Nor is it correct reading that science makes people happy. Look around. <br /><br />Thanks for the forum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-47710937188673509432010-07-14T07:52:05.430-07:002010-07-14T07:52:05.430-07:00while good solider boy Hermit clutches that bone l...while good solider boy Hermit clutches that bone like a good little minion determined to win for hate group and it's ideology every single tiny little nuance of a victory it can get, he totally ignores all the other quotes and issues that spelling crushing defeat for this pretense at social sciences.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-30678517898915162542010-07-14T07:49:49.867-07:002010-07-14T07:49:49.867-07:00I told Zuckerman about my historical research prov...I told Zuckerman about my historical research proving that the social welfare state in Sweden was started by Christians. <br /><br />He has not responded.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7134716174077866982010-07-14T07:48:59.873-07:002010-07-14T07:48:59.873-07:00A Hermit said...
"what Hermits lies abou...A Hermit said...<br /><br /> "what Hermits lies about her saying:<br /><br /> "She says Zuckerman only interviewed his academic colleagues,"<br /><br /> Follow the link in your own post to Karen's comments; if you actually read them you will find that, in her very first comment, she says this:<br /><br /><br /><b>Met: I quoted I her. where it hes' "he's being filled by the natives" that's her talking.<br /><br /><br />"It might be important to know that most academic reviews in the National papers in Denmark noted that Zuckermans book represented <br />A CLASSICAL EXAMPLE OF AN ANTHROPOLOGIST OR SOCIOLOIST FALLING SHORT WHILE BEING DUPED BY THE NATIVES!"<br /><br />THAT'S HER TALKING, I GOT IT FROM THE LINK GENIUS!</b><br /><br /> " you then base your research primarily upon interviews with collegues or friends of collegues at the department of religious science at the aforementioned university..."<br /><br /><br /><b>Meta: It's a question, it doesn't say exclusive it says "primarily." </b><br /><br /> Zuckerman's reponse:<br /><br /> " Most of my informants did NOT come from any university. I interviewed 149 people. The vast majority were not academics at all. To say that I based my research “primarily upon interviews with colleagues and friends” is simply a flagrant distortion and a cold lie and again indicates true hostility on your part that I find rather sad."<br /><br /> Karen never responds to this.<br /><br /> Why don't you post the comment in which I explained your error regarding the negative reviews? I went through the whole comment, and Zuckerman's publisher's reply line by line and explained it to you. He makes it clear that the negative reviews did NOT come from academics.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b>I did post the whole comment stupid. If you had any brains you would know that.<br /><br />I didn't post the latter ones because I didn't know about them. that latter exchange was several years before I saw it.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-62701564473790491422010-07-14T06:16:59.785-07:002010-07-14T06:16:59.785-07:00"what Hermits lies about her saying:
"S...<i>"what Hermits lies about her saying:<br /><br />"She says Zuckerman only interviewed his academic colleagues,"</i><br /><br />Follow the link in your own post to Karen's comments; if you actually read them you will find that, in her very first comment, she says this:<br /><br /><i>" you then base your research primarily upon interviews with collegues or friends of collegues at the department of religious science at the aforementioned university..."</i><br /><br />Zuckerman's reponse:<br /><br /><i>" Most of my informants did NOT come from any university. I interviewed 149 people. The vast majority were not academics at all. To say that I based my research “primarily upon interviews with colleagues and friends” is simply a flagrant distortion and a cold lie and again indicates true hostility on your part that I find rather sad."</i><br /><br />Karen never responds to this.<br /><br />Why don't you post the comment in which I explained your error regarding the negative reviews? I went through the whole comment, and Zuckerman's publisher's reply line by line and explained it to you. He makes it clear that the negative reviews did NOT come from academics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2674349852944709302010-07-13T18:40:28.103-07:002010-07-13T18:40:28.103-07:00what Hermits lies about her saying:
"She say...<b>what Hermits lies about her saying:</b><br /><br />"She says Zuckerman only interviewed his academic colleagues, Zuckerman says otherwise. What part of this are you having trouble with?"<br /><br /><br /><b>what she said:</b><br />"It might be important to know that most academic reviews in the National papers in Denmark noted that Zuckermans book represented a classical example of an anthropologist or sociologist falling short, while being duped by the natives."<br />(ibid) <br /><br /><b>so she actually said the sociologists say he'd duped by the natives not that he only talked to sociologists. since you love to call people who disagree with you liars, you are lying about what she said!</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72212201205447148682010-07-13T18:31:28.145-07:002010-07-13T18:31:28.145-07:00this Hermit guy will just do anything to procure t...this Hermit guy will just do anything to procure the sliest little bs victory no matter how trivial. The holy cult of atheism must survive!<br /><br />He's trying to read the publisher's statement as saying the sociologists weren't criticizing suckerman. I know for a fact American sociologists do. how valuable is the statement by the guy who is making money off the damn book?<br /><br />but read the statement there's' no way you can understand it to say that the sociologists are not the critics.<br /><br />he's trying to say only the Christians panned it and the sociologists of religion didn't. that's not what it says.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43495833235350693962010-07-13T13:03:49.600-07:002010-07-13T13:03:49.600-07:00I see you're also avoiding the part where she ...I see you're also avoiding the part where she lied about his having only interviewed his academic colleagues...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-2860446348054607472010-07-13T12:52:23.250-07:002010-07-13T12:52:23.250-07:00no he did not say otherwise. you really can't ...no he did not say otherwise. you really can't read can you? you are deceptive.remember he said the critical are sociologists of religion that means he's admitting that there were academic critics.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-22591075855615379252010-07-13T12:29:11.220-07:002010-07-13T12:29:11.220-07:00It's very simple: She claimed that academic re...It's very simple: She claimed that academic reviewers had panned the book; the publisher says otherwise. She says Zuckerman only interviewed his academic colleagues, Zuckerman says otherwise. What part of this are you having trouble with?<br /><br />Oh I see; the unknown blog commenter's opinion must be reliable because what she says reinforces your bias; the person who wrote the book, the information in the book itself and the publisher must be liars because they all contradict her unsupported assertions...<br /><br />You must be joking...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58652327387183279192010-07-13T12:09:20.936-07:002010-07-13T12:09:20.936-07:00the publisher wants money form the book, right? di...the publisher wants money form the book, right? did you know that? so he's going to spin it his way.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8395481260347113202010-07-13T12:08:52.030-07:002010-07-13T12:08:52.030-07:00he did not say anything to prove she was wrong. at...he did not say anything to prove she was wrong. atheists keep using words like "fact" and "proof" to mean "this is what I think."<br /><br />the publisher put a spin on the facts. His own spin he did not disprove them. He didn't quote anything either.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14124993996290701572010-07-13T09:17:11.517-07:002010-07-13T09:17:11.517-07:00Here's the important part you're missing; ...Here's the important part you're missing; His publisher said " “What the woman states is wrong!" her characterization of the criticism was false, as was her assertion that Zuckerman had only interviewed his academic colleagues.<br /><br />Gonna post all my comments, or not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-61102354085264439012010-07-13T09:11:46.719-07:002010-07-13T09:11:46.719-07:00let's look at what Hermit calls "facts.&q...let's look at what Hermit calls "facts."<br /><br />this is Z's answer to the woman quoting his publisher:<br /><br />"here’s what the Danish publisher of my book had to say in a recent e-mail about the reviews of my book: “What the woman states is wrong! There has been negative comments, and some actually pritty ‘loud’, but it has only been what we expected. Basically the comments can be split up into two cathegories: those comming from a Christian background eagerly defending the Christian entity, and ‘others’ – e.g. including sociologist of religion. Those critical are the ones in the first group. Unfortunately one of these ‘voices’ were asked to give a bookreview in Weekendavisen – and he came out fourious… But the ‘others’ have primarily been positive, embracing your book as raising an important question. So, far from all journalists or bookreviewers have been negative. What is the name of this woman? It shouldn’t by any chance be Karen Skovsgaard??? She was the first to criticise your book – that is what she always do… If you need more data on which reviews were positive and which where not, please let me know."<br /><br /><b>so first admitts there's been a lot of criticism and he even calls it loud! so much for the lie that it's a fact that he "disproves her lies." that says exactly she was right, now they put a spin on it. Instead of saying "I got a lot of criticism from sociologists" he "there was a lot of loud criticism" that means it got a lot of criticism wso that aspect of her statement was not a lie. Then fathers segments the groups, remember he's not quoting stats he's spinning the answer:<br /><br />the dismisses the critics by saying "that's what we expected." fine then they expected the scholars would pan the book so they are not upset about it. that certainly does not disprove what she said.<br /><br />he is dismissive of criticism, lumping it all in as "sociologists of religion" as though that they are biased religious people. Sociologists of religion are not necessarily religious and they are sociologists so they are his peers,and thus the experts don't like the book.<br /><br />what he does not say is that all the secular sociologists support it. Atheist can be sociologists of religion and most of them are atheists.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83806049972467446202010-07-13T09:04:18.679-07:002010-07-13T09:04:18.679-07:00A Hermit said...
I see that Zuckerman has com...A Hermit said...<br /><br /> I see that Zuckerman has completely demolished the lies told by that last commenter you quote here. Are you going to acknowledge that fact? <br /><br /><br /><b>this is another example of atheist reading comprehension problems. He states his opinions and that's all you need for a "fact" an atheist opinion. <br /><br />He did not answer what she said.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-16791995724914822322010-07-12T20:39:54.922-07:002010-07-12T20:39:54.922-07:00I see that Zuckerman has completely demolished the...I see that Zuckerman has completely demolished the lies told by that last commenter you quote here. Are you going to acknowledge that fact?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39505983814863624942010-07-12T18:04:05.949-07:002010-07-12T18:04:05.949-07:00Why do you only post about half of my comments?Why do you only post about half of my comments?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14034844585270521622010-07-05T17:38:30.993-07:002010-07-05T17:38:30.993-07:00what did I say hermit. use yoru brain man. I said ...what did I say hermit. use yoru brain man. I said that's what ATHEISTS say he says!@ <br /><br />that is exactly what they say he says. tons of them have used it that way.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51582943714115520602010-07-05T14:21:55.900-07:002010-07-05T14:21:55.900-07:00"
Zukerman's simplistic formulation would...<i>"<br />Zukerman's simplistic formulation would have us believe that Christianity = conservative and atheist = social consciousness and only atheists could ever support progress social institutions."</i><br /><br />Of course Zukerman is saying nothing of the kind; this is just a strawman you've created to smear and slander the man. I haven't read the book, but I have read articles and interviews with the man; in fact he makes it quite clear that he is NOT saying what you claim he is.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9vc7v7em_4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48564255894075203452010-07-05T12:00:26.844-07:002010-07-05T12:00:26.844-07:00"As long as you think of atheists as the sort..."As long as you think of atheists as the sorts of people you describe in your posts here, you'll continue having a difficult time with atheists. Consider that your view of atheists and atheism often appears just as limited and narrow as if I talked only of fundamentalist Bible-thumpers."<br /><br /><br /><b>the same is true for a the bitter vile idiotic things that atheists say to mock and ridicule Christians.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90580550018235018652010-07-05T11:59:30.066-07:002010-07-05T11:59:30.066-07:00Have YOU read the book?
yeaHave YOU read the book?<br /><br /><b>yea</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-47182165612767097742010-07-05T10:18:42.077-07:002010-07-05T10:18:42.077-07:00By the way, you should take the advice of your inc...By the way, you should take the advice of your incredibly patient friend Quantum Troll:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doxa.ws/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1007#p11339" rel="nofollow"><br /><i>"As long as you think of atheists as the sorts of people you describe in your posts here, you'll continue having a difficult time with atheists. Consider that your view of atheists and atheism often appears just as limited and narrow as if I talked only of fundamentalist Bible-thumpers."</i></a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14368493736786257982010-07-05T09:58:53.845-07:002010-07-05T09:58:53.845-07:00Have YOU read the book?Have YOU read the book?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-3840081630331241292010-07-05T07:16:36.345-07:002010-07-05T07:16:36.345-07:00Look at the little ideologue the good solider. His...Look at the little ideologue the good solider. His only concept of truth is "what helps the cause?"<br /><br />first words out of his mouth "I haven't read the book..."<br /><br />but does that stop him form flapping his gums? noOOOOOooooo<br /><br />the second words out of his mouth:<br /><br />but I still know what what he meant anyway (let's face it, that's basically what he said although not in those exact words).<br /><br /><br />You have not read the book, so stop flapping your gums (or finders).Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8784604779888179222010-07-05T07:11:03.602-07:002010-07-05T07:11:03.602-07:00I'm talking about the way atheists use it. I&#...I'm talking about the way atheists use it. I've destroy their stupid little fail safe they trot out when hey are losing other arguments.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com