tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post7779544783142824110..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: That trick Atheists do with the Subject-Object DichotomyJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-61959718774896481352010-10-12T11:50:13.155-07:002010-10-12T11:50:13.155-07:00Meta: "Is my support for mystical experience ...Meta: "Is my support for mystical experience based upon feelings? where did I get 200 studies?"<br /><br />No, your support for mystical experience is not based on feelings and is likely well supported by over 200 studies. But your theory that God is the cause of mystical experiences and subsequent transformations is apparently based on feelings because I am unaware of any evidence to support it.<br /><br />Meta: "Where is one single study that says people who trust in their feelings wind up dying in cults? is that transformation?"<br /><br />Since I'm only suggesting _some_ people who trust in their feelings wind up dying in cults, not all, I don't think a study is necessary. A few news stories should be sufficient to support my claim. And yes, dying is transformation. In my opinion it's a bad, undesirable transformation, but a transformation nonetheless. Most of the people who were transformed in that way did not share my opinion, though. They took those feelings to the grave.<br /><br />Meta: "Show me any link to any of mystical experience from any such group. Those guys didn't have mystical experience."<br /><br />Feelings with much less magnitude (or importance, or scientific backing) than mystical experiences can have disastrous consequences. Agreed.<br /><br />Meta: "Fear is a product of the mind. So the fear motivating you to say this is in your mind."<br /><br />Agreed. Fear only exists in the mind, and it can be a powerful motivator.<br /><br />Meta: "Your mind is tricking you into fear and that fear is preventing you from seeking truth."<br /><br />In my previous comment I mentioned facts that were contributing to my fear, which is that some people in the past have done things I would consider bad or stupid, and they did those things in part due to feelings they had regarding the part of the supernatural which is beyond naturalism, and they failed to seek the truth and examine their views objectively.<br /><br />Assuming I have no mental illness, are you suggesting I should not fear what I might do if I just go with my feelings all the time and act based on that, without seeking an objective truth?<br /><br />My whole point isn't really about which feelings are right or wrong, it's about whether or not atheists are rationally warranted to fear acting on feelings that are unsupported when analyzed objectively.Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58816110650645765362010-10-10T11:31:35.686-07:002010-10-10T11:31:35.686-07:00Or perhaps atheists are scared of what some people...Or perhaps atheists are scared of what some people have done in the past based on feelings without examining things objectively. I suspect a significant percentage of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Heaven's Gate cultists, and Jim Jones' followers have (or had) very strong feelings about their worldviews, and many of those people are (or were) not afraid of those feelings. If you wanted to combat such nonsense and convince these people of the error of their ways, would you try to convince them your feelings are more accurate than theirs? Would you try to present them with some objective evidence to support your position over theirs?<br /><br /><b>that's just part of fear. We don't need to fear that if we study the truth and know what it looks like, then we can reject error. all of those deception would be avoided if those groups had stuck to the Orthodoxy.</b><br /><br />If person A has a position supported primarily by feelings, and person B has a position supported primarily by feelings, and those two positions cannot both be true, then at least one person is wrong. When someone tries to persuade either person to change their position based on feelings, then the personality of both parties (instead of facts) becomes a major factor in whether someone is persuaded, and the facts don't really matter. Yes, that scares me.<br /><br /><br /><b>Ludicrous! where did I say that you should have your entire world view supported primarily by experiencing? is my support for mystical experience based upon feelings? where did I get 200 studies?<br /><br />where is one single study that says people who trust in their feelings wind up dying in cults? is that transformation?<br /><br />show me any link to any of mystical experience from any such group. Those guys didn't have mystical experience. With the M scale we can know!<br /><br />get your guru to do the M scale.</b><br /><br />The ability of the mind to fool its human host is well documented and easily demonstrated, and I'm not talking about just optical illusions. if you feel there are monsters in a dark room (or angels, or Satan, or Jesus), just turn on a light to reveal some facts. Still not satisfied? Get some night-vision goggles or infrared detecting devices or any other piece of monster-detecting equipment you want. If the monsters still can't be detected, maybe they're only in your mind.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>guess what? fear is a product of the mind. So the fear motivating you to say this is in your mind. your mind is tricking you into fear and that fear is preventing you from seeking truth.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-74487509772201353592010-10-08T12:54:31.662-07:002010-10-08T12:54:31.662-07:00Meta: "Atheists are scared to death of feelin...Meta: "Atheists are scared to death of feelings and the subjective."<br /><br />Or perhaps atheists are scared of what some people have done in the past based on feelings without examining things objectively. I suspect a significant percentage of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Heaven's Gate cultists, and Jim Jones' followers have (or had) very strong feelings about their worldviews, and many of those people are (or were) not afraid of those feelings. If you wanted to combat such nonsense and convince these people of the error of their ways, would you try to convince them your feelings are more accurate than theirs? Would you try to present them with some objective evidence to support your position over theirs?<br /><br />If person A has a position supported primarily by feelings, and person B has a position supported primarily by feelings, and those two positions cannot both be true, then at least one person is wrong. When someone tries to persuade either person to change their position based on feelings, then the personality of both parties (instead of facts) becomes a major factor in whether someone is persuaded, and the facts don't really matter. Yes, that scares me.<br /><br />The ability of the mind to fool its human host is well documented and easily demonstrated, and I'm not talking about just optical illusions. if you feel there are monsters in a dark room (or angels, or Satan, or Jesus), just turn on a light to reveal some facts. Still not satisfied? Get some night-vision goggles or infrared detecting devices or any other piece of monster-detecting equipment you want. If the monsters still can't be detected, maybe they're only in your mind.<br /><br />"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer . . . Superstition ain't the way . . . " -- Stevie WonderBrap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40032830892524604752010-10-08T08:57:25.379-07:002010-10-08T08:57:25.379-07:00"it may be that your hatred of Christianity w...<i>"it may be that your hatred of Christianity would not let you accept Jesus..."</i><br /><br />Why do you think I hate Christianity? I don't personally believe in all of it, I don't call myself a Christian, I take issue with a lot of the nonsense pushed by some Christians but I certainly don't hate Christianity and in fact I respect and admire many of the principles expressed by the more liberal wings of the faith; Christ's compassion is still an inspiration for me. But I don't believe he was anything more than a human being.<br /><br /><i>"you have no respect for learning, most atheists don't. you think of real thought as gymnastics because you are afraid to confront the truth."</i><br /><br />I have tremendous respect for learning, you need to stop attributing these false attitudes to me. But I think you're going to an awful lot of effort to rationalize beliefs which are ultimately unverifiable, subjective and "knowable" only through personal, internal experience.. That's fine if it works for you personally, but don't be surprised if those of us who don't share your personal, subjective, internal experiences come to different conclusions. <br /><br /><i><"O I'm not human! I'm a Vulcan I don't have emotions."</i><br /><br />You're the one who said he had turned off emotions as an atheist. I'm contrasting my atheism with yours.<br /><br /><i>"If you really accepted your humanity you would not fear the subjective as atheists do. I know you do."</i><br /><br />No, you know nothing of the kind. You want to create a false image of me so you can dismiss my opinions. I'm sorry, but I don't intend to conform to the pigeonhole you have prepared for me. If you can't deal with the existence of thoughtful, compassionate, open minded humanist atheists who love learning and art yet still disagree with you about the existence of God I guess that's your problem.<br /><br /><i>"what you call "humanity" is just being a robot."</i><br /><br />No, that's YOUR opinion, not mine. I don't think we need God for humanity to have value. <br /><br /><i>"You have no concern for humanity as such"</i><br /><br />On the contrary, my concern is all about humanity, for humanity's own sake. I don't need belief in God in order to have such a concern, and my concern for humanity can't be subsumed under a concern for something "bigger"...<br /><br /><i>"stop your slogan-ism and ideology..."</i><br /><br />You first...;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83138580394094506792010-10-08T05:26:36.517-07:002010-10-08T05:26:36.517-07:00Obviously I meant to say "you didn't know...Obviously I meant to say "you didn't know Jesus."Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81331678135794954272010-10-08T05:25:45.809-07:002010-10-08T05:25:45.809-07:00Maybe before passing judgment on atheists like me ...Maybe before passing judgment on atheists like me you should take your own advice, shut up and listen.<br /><br /><b>I've listened to atheists far more than you have. You are not willing to listen to anything Christians say because you think you know it all.</b><br /><br />Yes, I moved past my faith. <br /><br /><b>because you know Jesus.</b><br /><br /><br />I have contentment in the acceptance of the world as it is. Believe it or not I embrace love and goodness like I never did before. <br /><br /><b>I do believe that. You may hve found God after being into Christianity. that's not so unthinkable. A relationship with Jesus is not about going to chruch and keeping rules.<br /><br />it may be that your hatred of Christianity would not let you accept Jesus but if you call it something else you can accept God in the guise of "love" or 'science' or whatever.<br /><br />that's not for me to say that's something only you can think about.</b><br /><br /><br />I've learned to just accept these things without having to go through the metaphysical gymnastics you subject yourself to, and unlike you I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to be in possession of the "ultimate truth."<br /><br /><br /><b>your appraise of real thought of not interesting to me. you have no respect for learning, most atheists don't. you think of real thought as gymnastics because you are afraid to confront the truth.</b><br /><br />I have embraced my humanity, emotions and all. <br /><br /><b>O I'm not human! I'm a Vulcan I don't have emotions. If you really accepted your humanity you would not fear the subjective as atheists do. I know you do.<br /><br />what you call "humanity" is just being a robot. You have no concern for humanity as such. you want to be a mindless robot, you want to accept being determined in all you think and do.</b><br /><br /><br />There's nothing "spock-like" in my atheism. I'm sorry if your feelings were so bad you had to smother them, but I'm not you, and you shouldn't make assumptions about me or my beliefs on the basis of your past shortcomings.<br /><br /><b>stop your slogan-ism and ideology face the truth. Atheists are scared to death of feelings and the subjective.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78071372610339180522010-10-07T21:13:22.108-07:002010-10-07T21:13:22.108-07:00Maybe before passing judgment on atheists like me ...Maybe before passing judgment on atheists like me you should take your own advice, shut up and listen.<br /><br />Yes, I moved past my faith. I have contentment in the acceptance of the world as it is. Believe it or not I embrace love and goodness like I never did before. I've learned to just accept these things without having to go through the metaphysical gymnastics you subject yourself to, and unlike you I'm not arrogant enough to pretend to be in possession of the "ultimate truth."<br /><br />I have embraced my humanity, emotions and all. There's nothing "spock-like" in my atheism. I'm sorry if your feelings were so bad you had to smother them, but I'm not you, and you shouldn't make assumptions about me or my beliefs on the basis of your past shortcomings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4970764540433231632010-10-07T16:38:51.447-07:002010-10-07T16:38:51.447-07:00that's what you are doing hermit. you fail to ...that's what you are doing hermit. you fail to learn. you should shut your mouth and listen to those who know but you refuse.<br /><br />You are assuming my deal is like yours. if you saw through your Christianity you saw through all Christianity and that's bull shit. If you ever knew God would would never reject that.<br /><br />why would anyone every turn around and walk away form ultimate truth the essence of love the source of all good?<br /><br />if you can do that because you think it' snot that shows you didn't know.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89039705981481423212010-10-06T09:53:42.479-07:002010-10-06T09:53:42.479-07:00"When I was an atheist I tired to be Mr. Spoc...<i>"When I was an atheist I tired to be Mr. Spock. I didn't want feelings, so many of my feelings were bad I prided myself on being unemotional and logical and not feeling things."</i><br /><br />And you continue to project your own behaviour on to others who are in fact nothing like that. You need to stop doing that if you ever want to really understand the other point of view...this is actually an excellent example of the kind of straw man style of arguing Oliphant is talking about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83521870781476846692010-10-05T04:21:36.343-07:002010-10-05T04:21:36.343-07:00Look I know the attraction of religion is getting ...Look I know the attraction of religion is getting to make it up as you go along :) But keep it it that 'magisteria' ok? :)<br /><br /><br /><b>that speaks volumes, not about religion. About your biases. O the big objective guy who can't be totally honest reveals his true stripes.</b><br /><br /><br />Funny, how many actual controlled experiments has the "M Scale" been validated in?<br /><br /><b>Other than Hood over a dozen. It's become standard. By Hood about 25.</b><br /><br /><br />I checked pubmed and some other places. Oh and do the 'drug-induced' experiments distinguish where you are on the "M Scale" from just being high? :)<br /><br /><b>the only drug induced one I know of that uses the M scale is Grifiths who says his work doesn't disprove the divine in the experience.</b><br /><br />You do a lot of unsupported asserting there bubba ;) How about a few of those references re: religion.<br /><br /><br /><b>The official Catholic miracle machine has it's own process of documentation which includes real academic journals. The documentation of the chruch is more authoritative than any academic journal. I know because I ran an academic journal I know how manipulative they are.<br /><br />with the strict nature of the Lourdes rules you really can't cheat. they have to have the docs. I'm sure you doubt their veracity, you will just say "it's religiosu religoius people always lie blah blah blah." That doesn't make counterfeited.<br /><br />Every time evidence goes agaisnt an atheist it's always a lie. don't tell me you are childish enough to buy the title wining "If it was true an academic journal would say so." There's nothing magical about academic journals. I ran one I know they have a thousand tricks to look authoritative they are totally dishonest.</b><br /><br />And the links you do provide. Hmm, do you have any to actual medical journals,etc with say metastudies that validate your claims? I actually took the time to read the 'badly done' atheists in prison study.<br /><br /><b>your standards of documentation are totally selective. When I have the journals to prove the pint they are not good because they aren ot medical. If they are academic and peer reviewed that' the best you can do. That's not a guarantee of veracity but it's the best you can get. You can't switch it over and say "I demand a medical jounral."<br /><br />several of the them are on Pubmed but I can't get them because I'm not a member. But I've seen them because I have professors who helped me.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />The link you provided arbitrarily combines Atheists into the Unknown/No Answer category. As far as I know, not answering doesn't equal atheism. And accuses Swift of monkeying with the numbers, when in fact, that's exactly what link you provided does!<br /><br /><b>the prison thing? The category "no religion" can be understood as atheist. It wasn't just "no answer" it was "no religion."<br /><br />did you not see the letter on adherence where they guy compiling it said the atheist was cheating?</b><br /><br />Look I know the attraction of religion is getting to make it up as you go along :) But keep it it that 'magisteria' ok? :)<br /><br /><br /><b>that speaks volumes, not about religion. About your biases. O the big objective guy who can't be totally honest reveals his true stripes.</b><br /><br />Funny, how many actual controlled experiments has the "M Scale" been validated in?<br /><br /><b>Other than Hood over a dozen. It's become standard. By Hood about 25.</b><br /><br /><br />I checked pubmed and some other places. Oh and do the 'drug-induced' experiments distinguish where you are on the "M Scale" from just being high? :)<br /><br /><b>the only drug induced one I know of that uses the M scale is Grifiths who says his work doesn't disprove the divine in the experience.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-26375499799478180322010-10-05T04:21:23.525-07:002010-10-05T04:21:23.525-07:00several of the them are on Pubmed but I can't ...<b>several of the them are on Pubmed but I can't get them because I'm not a member. But I've seen them because I have professors who helped me.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />The link you provided arbitrarily combines Atheists into the Unknown/No Answer category. As far as I know, not answering doesn't equal atheism. And accuses Swift of monkeying with the numbers, when in fact, that's exactly what link you provided does!<br /><br /><b>the prison thing? The category "no religion" can be understood as atheist. It wasn't just "no answer" it was "no religion."<br /><br />did you not see the letter on adherence where they guy compiling it said the atheist was cheating?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59263388033646250702010-10-05T04:19:12.206-07:002010-10-05T04:19:12.206-07:00Meta:with the strict nature of the Lourdes rules y...<b>Meta:</b>with the strict nature of the Lourdes rules you really can't cheat. they have to have the docs. I'm sure you doubt their veracity, you will just say "it's religiosu religoius people always lie blah blah blah." That doesn't make counterfeited.<br /><br />Every time evidence goes agaisnt an atheist it's always a lie. don't tell me you are childish enough to buy the title wining "If it was true an academic journal would say so." There's nothing magical about academic journals. I ran one I know they have a thousand tricks to look authoritative they are totally dishonest.<br /><br />And the links you do provide. Hmm, do you have any to actual medical journals,etc with say metastudies that validate your claims? I actually took the time to read the 'badly done' atheists in prison study.<br /><br /><b>your standards of documentation are totally selective. When I have the journals to prove the pint they are not good because they aren ot medical. If they are academic and peer reviewed that' the best you can do. That's not a guarantee of veracity but it's the best you can get. You can't switch it over and say "I demand a medical</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-35493723651686227812010-10-05T04:18:26.891-07:002010-10-05T04:18:26.891-07:00You do a lot of unsupported asserting there bubba ...You do a lot of unsupported asserting there bubba ;) How about a few of those references re: religion.<br /><br /><br /><b>The official Catholic miracle machine has it's own process of documentation which includes real academic journals. The documentation of the chruch is more authoritative than any academic journal. I know because I ran an academic journal I know how manipulative they are.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-51598811659833076202010-10-05T04:17:37.098-07:002010-10-05T04:17:37.098-07:00Intersubjective validation is the bulwark of scien...Intersubjective validation is the bulwark of science. Can X result be reproduced across multiple individuals, condition,etc. It is the "Intersubjectively validated" that we refer to when we speak of what objective and what is not. Where were you trying to go with that?<br /><br /><br /><b>Of course it is. That does not mean that everything you can label 'science' is really scientific, or that even really scientific stuff answers all questions.<br /><br />Mystical experience is inter subjective.</b><br /><br />I assume you have references the published papers regarding the Lourdes miracles ?<br /><br /><b>Yes</b><br /><br />jounral."Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85621095656127945502010-10-05T04:17:20.321-07:002010-10-05T04:17:20.321-07:00Intersubjective validation is the bulwark of scien...Intersubjective validation is the bulwark of science. Can X result be reproduced across multiple individuals, condition,etc. It is the "Intersubjectively validated" that we refer to when we speak of what objective and what is not. Where were you trying to go with that?<br /><br /><br /><b>Of course it is. That does not mean that everything you can label 'science' is really scientific, or that even really scientific stuff answers all questions.<br /><br />Mystical experience is inter subjective</b><br /><br />I assume you have references the published papers regarding the Lourdes miracles ?<br /><br /><b>Yes</b><br /><br />You do a lot of unsupported asserting there bubba ;) How about a few of those references re: religion.<br /><br /><br /><b>The official Catholic miracle machine has it's own process of documentation which includes real academic journals. The documentation of the chruch is more authoritative than any academic journal. I know because I ran an academic journal I know how manipulative they are.<br /><br />with the strict nature of the Lourdes rules you really can't cheat. they have to have the docs. I'm sure you doubt their veracity, you will just say "it's religiosu religoius people always lie blah blah blah." That doesn't make counterfeited.<br /><br />Every time evidence goes agaisnt an atheist it's always a lie. don't tell me you are childish enough to buy the title wining "If it was true an academic journal would say so." There's nothing magical about academic journals. I ran one I know they have a thousand tricks to look authoritative they are totally dishonest</b><br /><br />And the links you do provide. Hmm, do you have any to actual medical journals,etc with say metastudies that validate your claims? I actually took the time to read the 'badly done' atheists in prison study.<br /><br /><b>your standards of documentation are totally selective. When I have the journals to prove the pint they are not good because they aren ot medical. If they are academic and peer reviewed that' the best you can do. That's not a guarantee of veracity but it's the best you can get. You can't switch it over and say "I demand a medical jounral."</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75402923181228679322010-10-05T04:16:17.436-07:002010-10-05T04:16:17.436-07:00You're persisting the wordplay about "obj...You're persisting the wordplay about "objective facts" etc that's fine. If you'd like how's objectively verified facts? I think you know that's what's meant.<br /><br /><b>what good is it to pretend that you have objectively verified facts when the only attitude you can possibly take toward them, or the only way you can ever view them is through a biased, emotional, unobjective (ie subjective) human perception?<br /><br />It is a pretense. Like when I tried to pretend I was a Vulcan. I am not a Vulcan, I do have feelings and pretending I didn't didn't do any good.<br /><br />Obviously I am not saying don't collect facts. I wouldn't have 200 empirical studies if I didn't believe in facts. When our use of facts is totally selective and everything perceptive we take to facts is a self serving spin then we can't pretend we have a "factual world view."</b><br /><br /><br />Also your point regarding inter-subjectivity is entirely specious, unless you've intentionally left off the 'validation' part. :)<br /><br /><br /><b>You know that's none sense. Show me a philosophical work or a physiological study that disproves my point. That's your opinion because you are feelings are hurt because you can't stand to hear ideas that contradict the sacred ideology.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89969989425203777682010-10-05T04:15:34.517-07:002010-10-05T04:15:34.517-07:00Blogger Erich Oliphant said...
Oh my you've o...Blogger Erich Oliphant said...<br /><br />Oh my you've outdone yourself lol.<br /><br /><b>thanks! ;=)</b><br /><br />I will try to be brief and try not to trip over the ad hominems :)<br /><br /><b>what ad hominems?</b><br /><br /><br /><br />As usual, you are mischaracterizing things. Please put the straw down. The point that atheists (and you know people who value reason and logic:)) make regarding subjectivity is that alone it's not especially useful. Many subjective, even imaginative experiences, when subjected to experimental verification have been confirmed (e.g. Einstein imagined curved spacetime, the reason we know who he is that it's been verified)<br /><br /><br /><b>That's just a rational presentation of the atheist fear of one's own feelings. I think atheists are so unused to learning form their feelings they don't understand that feelings can be healthy and you can learn from them. I imagine most atheists are used to bad feelings and not good ones.<br /><br />When I was an atheist I tired to be Mr. Spock. I didn't want feelings, so many of my feelings were bad I prided myself on being unemotional and logical and not feeling things.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12647570521864523182010-10-05T04:14:52.875-07:002010-10-05T04:14:52.875-07:00Blogger Erich Oliphant said...
Oh my you've o...Blogger Erich Oliphant said...<br /><br />Oh my you've outdone yourself lol.<br /><br /><b>thanks! ;=)</b><br /><br />I will try to be brief and try not to trip over the ad hominems :)<br /><br /><b>what ad hominems?</b><br /><br /><br /><br />As usual, you are mischaracterizing things. Please put the straw down. The point that atheists (and you know people who value reason and logic:)) make regarding subjectivity is that alone it's not especially useful. Many subjective, even imaginative experiences, when subjected to experimental verification have been confirmed (e.g. Einstein imagined curved spacetime, the reason we know who he is that it's been verified)<br /><br /><br /><b>That's just a rational presentation of the atheist fear of one's own feelings. I think atheists are so unused to learning form their feelings they don't understand that feelings can be healthy and you can learn from them. I imagine most atheists are used to bad feelings and not good ones.<br /><br />When I was an atheist I tired to be Mr. Spock. I didn't want feelings, so many of my feelings were bad I prided myself on being unemotional and logical and not feeling things.</b><br /><br />You're persisting the wordplay about "objective facts" etc that's fine. If you'd like how's objectively verified facts? I think you know that's what's meant.<br /><br /><b>what good is it to pretend that you have objectively verified facts when the only attitude you can possibly take toward them, or the only way you can ever view them is through a biased, emotional, unobjective (ie subjective) human perception?<br /><br />It is a pretense. Like when I tried to pretend I was a Vulcan. I am not a Vulcan, I do have feelings and pretending I didn't didn't do any good.<br /><br />Obviously I am not saying don't collect facts. I wouldn't have 200 empirical studies if I didn't believe in facts. When our use of facts is totally selective and everything perceptive we take to facts is a self serving spin then we can't pretend we have a "factual world view."</b><br /><br /><br />Also your point regarding inter-subjectivity is entirely specious, unless you've intentionally left off the 'validation' part. :)<br /><br /><br /><b>You know that's none sense. Show me a philosophical work or a physiological study that disproves my point. That's your opinion because you are feelings are hurt because you can't stand to hear ideas that contradict the sacred ideology.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Intersubjective validation is the bulwark of science. Can X result be reproduced across multiple individuals, condition,etc. It is the "Intersubjectively validated" that we refer to when we speak of what objective and what is not. Where were you trying to go with that?<br /><br /><br /><b>Of course it is. That does not mean that everything you can label 'science' is really scientific, or that even really scientific stuff answers all questions.<br /><br />Mystical experience is inter subjective.</b><br /><br />I assume you have references the published papers regarding the Lourdes miracles ?<br /><br /><b>Yes</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54461561631364579692010-10-05T04:13:21.182-07:002010-10-05T04:13:21.182-07:00Blogger Erich Oliphant said...
Oh my you'...Blogger Erich Oliphant said...<br /><br /> Oh my you've outdone yourself lol.<br /><br /><b>thanks! ;=)</b><br /><br /> I will try to be brief and try not to trip over the ad hominems :)<br /><br /><b>what ad hominems?</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> As usual, you are mischaracterizing things. Please put the straw down. The point that atheists (and you know people who value reason and logic:)) make regarding subjectivity is that alone it's not especially useful. Many subjective, even imaginative experiences, when subjected to experimental verification have been confirmed (e.g. Einstein imagined curved spacetime, the reason we know who he is that it's been verified)<br /><br /><br /><b>That's just a rational presentation of the atheist fear of one's own feelings. I think atheists are so unused to learning form their feelings they don't understand that feelings can be healthy and you can learn from them. I imagine most atheists are used to bad feelings and not good ones.<br /><br />When I was an atheist I tired to be Mr. Spock. I didn't want feelings, so many of my feelings were bad I prided myself on being unemotional and logical and not feeling things.</b><br /><br /> You're persisting the wordplay about "objective facts" etc that's fine. If you'd like how's objectively verified facts? I think you know that's what's meant.<br /><br /><b>what good is it to pretend that you have objectively verified facts when the only attitude you can possibly take toward them, or the only way you can ever view them is through a biased, emotional, unobjective (ie subjective) human perception?<br /><br />It is a pretense. Like when I tried to pretend I was a Vulcan. I am not a Vulcan, I do have feelings and pretending I didn't didn't do any good.<br /><br />Obviously I am not saying don't collect facts. I wouldn't have 200 empirical studies if I didn't believe in facts. When our use of facts is totally selective and everything perceptive we take to facts is a self serving spin then we can't pretend we have a "factual world view."</b><br /><br /><br /> Also your point regarding inter-subjectivity is entirely specious, unless you've intentionally left off the 'validation' part. :) <br /><br /><br /><b>You know that's none sense. Show me a philosophical work or a physiological study that disproves my point. That's your opinion because you are feelings are hurt because you can't stand to hear ideas that contradict the sacred ideology.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Intersubjective validation is the bulwark of science. Can X result be reproduced across multiple individuals, condition,etc. It is the "Intersubjectively validated" that we refer to when we speak of what objective and what is not. Where were you trying to go with that?<br /><br /><br /><b>Of course it is. That does not mean that everything you can label 'science' is really scientific, or that even really scientific stuff answers all questions.<br /><br />Mystical experience is inter subjective.</b><br /><br /> I assume you have references the published papers regarding the Lourdes miracles ?<br /><br /><b>Yes</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-89830951577827763382010-10-05T03:52:37.752-07:002010-10-05T03:52:37.752-07:00Meta (before):"In well over 200 studies this ...<b>Meta (before):</b>"In well over 200 studies this has been done and the evidence shows that such experiences have a profound long term positive effect upon those who have them."<br /><br /><b>Brap Gronk:</b>What theories do these studies propose as the cause of these long term positive effects, and what evidence do they have supporting those theories?<br /><br /><b>Most of them don't assert an ultimate cause. Hood's work is aimed at proving the "common core" theory of mysticism, the idea that mystical conscoiusness has a common core that's all the same. This idea implies some sort of higher power or higher truth scheme but doesn't assert God per se.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> I have read your various summaries of the studies, and I have no trouble believing in the long term positive effects of mystical experiences. I'm just wondering what the authors of the studies theorize to be the cause, other than the mystical experience itself.<br /><br /><br /><b>Most of them assume they are just scientist recording observations they don't try to make metaphysical commentary.</b><br /><br />"salvation comes in knowing God and that is an individual matter that transcends all man made institutions."<br /><br />How can anyone really know if or how salvation is possible (or even necessary) if, to quote a certain blogger, "God is beyond human understanding because God is transcendent."<br /><br /><b>That doesn't extend to experience. The tradition that says God is beyond our understanding also says the correlate is that we can experience and and understand beyond words. WE understand in the heart through experience.<br /><br />Your question is basically "how does one frame the notion of salvation, what's the justification for understand things that way?" That is the upshot of a tradition. that's the reason for having one. It's the out come of the experience. That's why what they mean by "noetic qualities." One of the noetic lessons learned is about the sense of salvation.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> It seems to me like the concept of a need for salvation in the first place is man-made. Isn't it a huge leap to get from "It's rational to believe in God due to the universality of mystical experiences" to "All humans are sinners in need of salvation?"<br /><br /><b>It's an understanding, one that is conveyed in the experience. it is conditioned by a tradition, that's what tradition is for, it's a guide so you learn form other's experiences as well as your own.<br /><br />The sense of being lost and the need for salvation is universal to humanity, although it's not always expressed in those terms. All religious tradition is about restoring a sense of balance or equilibrium perceived through existential to be disturbed through existential angst. </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12231287027881829802010-10-04T20:24:53.054-07:002010-10-04T20:24:53.054-07:00"In well over 200 studies this has been done ..."In well over 200 studies this has been done and the evidence shows that such experiences have a profound long term positive effect upon those who have them."<br /><br />What theories do these studies propose as the cause of these long term positive effects, and what evidence do they have supporting those theories? I have read your various summaries of the studies, and I have no trouble believing in the long term positive effects of mystical experiences. I'm just wondering what the authors of the studies theorize to be the cause, other than the mystical experience itself.<br /><br />"salvation comes in knowing God and that is an individual matter that transcends all man made institutions."<br /><br />How can anyone really know if or how salvation is possible (or even necessary) if, to quote a certain blogger, "God is beyond human understanding because God is transcendent." It seems to me like the concept of a need for salvation in the first place is man-made. Isn't it a huge leap to get from "It's rational to believe in God due to the universality of mystical experiences" to "All humans are sinners in need of salvation?"Brap Gronkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03075378067530053755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-17743253676129119462010-10-04T16:03:22.425-07:002010-10-04T16:03:22.425-07:00Oh my you've outdone yourself lol.
I will try...Oh my you've outdone yourself lol.<br /><br />I will try to be brief and try not to trip over the ad hominems :) <br /><br />As usual, you are mischaracterizing things. Please put the straw down. The point that atheists (and you know people who value reason and logic:)) make regarding subjectivity is that <i>alone</i> it's not especially useful. Many subjective, even imaginative experiences, when subjected to experimental verification have been confirmed (e.g. Einstein <i>imagined</i> curved spacetime, the reason we know who he is that it's been verified)<br /><br />You're persisting the wordplay about "objective facts" etc that's fine. If you'd like how's objectively verified facts? I think you know that's what's meant.<br /><br />Also your point regarding inter-subjectivity is entirely specious, unless you've intentionally left off the 'validation' part. :) <i>Intersubjective validation</i> is the bulwark of science. Can X result be reproduced across multiple individuals, condition,etc. It is the "Intersubjectively validated" that we refer to when we speak of what objective and what is not. Where were you trying to go with that?<br /><br />I assume you have references the published papers regarding the Lourdes miracles ?<br /><br />You do a lot of unsupported asserting there bubba ;) How about a few of those references re: religion. <br /><br />And the links you do provide. Hmm, do you have any to actual medical journals,etc with say metastudies that validate your claims? I actually took the time to read the 'badly done' atheists in prison study. The link you provided arbitrarily combines Atheists into the Unknown/No Answer category. As far as I know, not answering doesn't equal atheism. And accuses Swift of monkeying with the numbers, when in fact, that's exactly what link you provided does!<br /><br />Look I know the attraction of religion is getting to make it up as you go along :) But keep it it that 'magisteria' ok? :)<br /><br />Funny, how many actual controlled experiments has the "M Scale" been validated in? I checked pubmed and some other places. Oh and do the 'drug-induced' experiments distinguish where you are on the "M Scale" from just being high? :)Erich Oliphanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16036666911980539995noreply@blogger.com