Tuesday, May 31, 2022

Answering J.L Schellenberg

 photo chess-with-death-ii-300x216_zps7ckqdhik.jpg
The Knight (Max Von Sydow) plays chess with death
Igmar Berman's The Seventh Seal (greatest
film evervmade).


published on religiou a priori https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2017/02/answering-jl-schellenberg.html


J.L. Schellenberg argues that the presence of non-resisting unbelievers disproves God.The basic concept is that if there are such non-resisting non-believers surly God would reveal himself to them because if God is all loving God would want a relationship with them. That they don't find God shows God is probably not there to show them.

So where can we go from there? Well, an argument can be developed for supposing that nonresistant nonbelief would not exist if there were a God. Let me set out the argument as clearly as possible, and then we can discuss its nature and its force.
  1. If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God are in a position to participate in such relationships--i.e., able to do so just by trying to.
  2. No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists.
  3. If there is a perfectly loving God, all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists (from 1 and 2).
  4. It is not the case that all creatures capable of explicit and positively meaningful relationship with God who have not freely shut themselves off from God believe that God exists: there is nonresistant nonbelief; God is hidden.
  5. It is not the case that there is a perfectly loving God (from 3 and 4).
  6. If God exists, God is perfectly loving.
  7. It is not the case that God exists (from 5 and 6).[1]

He draws analogy to human relationships. After all what other means do we have to understand love but our relationships with those we love?
I am suggesting is that there is something remarkably odd about the idea that, supposing there really is a God whose love is unsurpassed perfect, such creatures should ever be unable to exercise their capacity for relationship with God--at least so long as they have not got themselves into that position through resisting the divine in the manner earlier indicated. What sense can we make of the idea that capable creatures should be open to relationship with a perfectly loving God, not resisting it at all, perhaps even longing for it, and yet not in a place where they can have such a relationship, if there really is a perfectly loving God? I suggest that if we look carefully at the matter, we will not be able to make any sense of that at all. A perfectly loving God--if those words mean anything--would, like the best human lover, ensure that meaningful contact with herself was always possible for those she loved.
Notice how our everyday use of the language of love pushes us in this direction. The perfectly loving mother or husband or brother or friend will see to it that nothing he or she does ever puts relationship out of reach for the loved one.

I have three basic arguments, but first I am going to grant that there are non resisting unbelievers. I don't really believe there are and I don't believe it can be proved. He has no crystal ball we cannot look upon the heart as God does. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Rationalizing what we do and our own nobility is one of the things Humans do best. Making such an argument is perhaps an act of resisting in and of itself. Yet I will grant for the sake of argument and take on the argument on it's own terms. Toward that end grant for argument sake there are non resisting unbelievers, I still have three responses:

(1) Human relationships are only analogy

Through our own experience  loving and being loved we have a notion of what love is. Yet we do not have a perfect notion, we have no example of perfect love save that of Christ dying on the cross. Humans do not love each other perfectly. Some times human love is standoffish we don't always act on our feelings for others. In that sense we might conclude  that God doesn't care, but that's only because we are comparing God's love to imperfect human love. The comparison of God's love to human love is only a metaphor anyway. There is no 1x1 correspondence to the effect that's God's agape should be perfectly analogous to human philos.

Human relationships are only analogous to God's love, all analogy has a"not-like" was well as a "like" dimension. Jesus himself provides the perfect role model for God's love. Using Jesus as the model God.s love is not always self explanatory. I'll deal with the issue of God's hidden presence in point three. But for now suffice to say God's love is not always obvious, that doesn't mean it is occulted or absent.


(2) Either the non resisting phase, or the non believing phase, may be temporary. 

Assuming that there are unresistant unbelievers, that does't mean they stay that way There can be times in a person's life when they are non resisting and open to God but don't find the signs stacking up in such a way that that they would find God.There will come a point at which they will either find God or begin to resist. Which to say they found God but for some reason don't want to find God. The factors in tracing that out would be enormously complex, they would different from case to case. Trying to pin down an exact profile of belief would be like profiling snowflakes. Because this argument does involve soteriological issues it takes us into point 3. But before going there I have to deal with one other issue.

The temporal answer is only a stopgap solution. The skeptic can still raise the point why doesn't God make his move, so to speak, in that short time when the unbeliever is open and not resisting? To say that the non believer begins resisting at that point is really a problem because that would indicate that he wasn't open after all. But to answer that we should have to know the complex variables that make for decision making in this area, we can't really know that. Given that caveat I think Jesus gave us a hint in the parable of the sower (Mark 4: 1-19).

The seed is the world and the type of soil or other problems that prevent the seed taking root represent things that can happen that might separate one from belief. Those include symbols for riches and cares of they world for example. None of these people are throwing away the seeds,so in that sense they are non resisters.  The seeds are taken by weeds, thrones, birds. The seeds are spread and fall where they may, then they are intercepted or negated in some way, now of course question arises why does God not prevent this? Surely if Love of God means anything he should get through to those who are not resisting him, even if the message is negated. I think he does, that is a theological issue and thus leads us to point three.

(3) God's love is not hidden but it is prehended

This point breaks down into three major issues all three of them theological. These are prhension,  salvation and theodicy, It's a theological issue because it draws upon core of theology proper, faith seeking understanding (in the classical model). The prehension issue deals with the nature of our understanding of God and it answers P2 in Shallenberg's argumemt: No one can be in a position to participate in such relationships without believing that God exists. That depends upon what relationship we are talking about. No one is going to be a great lion of God and not know it, One will not be Kierkegaard's knight of faith and not know it. One might be saved and not know it,one is being communicated to by 'God and most people don't  know it,. God is communicating through prehension: 

a. prehension


Through Whitehead's category of prehension, the nonsensory sympathetic perception of antecedent experiences, we are able to reduce several apparently very different types of relations to one fundamental type of relation. [It] explains not only memory and perception, . . . but also temporality, space, causality, enduring individuality (or substance), the mind-body relation, the subject-object relation in general, and the God-world relation. [2]
But this is at an unconscious level. However, in some people, this direct prehension of the "Holy" rises to the level of conscious experience. We generally call theses people "mystics". Now, the reason why a few people are conscious of God is not the result of God violating causal principle; some people are just able to conform to God's initial datum in greater degree than other people can. I don't kno why God seems to chose to make his presence known to some and not others But I accept that the basis of mystical experience is real,discernible, noetic and from God. I do think God is putting this out to everyone and some have a greater capacity for receiving it than others, In place of resisting God I find a lot of people want their own way, they want God to do it their way, to that extent they are not content with God's choices for them.That amounts to resisting while not resisting per se.
The experience of no one single witness is final the "the proof" but the fact that there are millions of witnesses who, in differing levels from the generally intuitive to the mystical, experience must the same thing in terms of general religious belief the argument is simply that God interacts on a human heart level, and the experiences of those who witness such interaction is strong evidence for that conclusion.

b. Salvation

If God is always speaking to us all why are we not all Christians? Because we are getting it at an instinctive or subliminal level and to understand it we have to formulate ideas based upon the impressions. Ideas have to be formed in language and thus they must be filtered through cultural constructs. That's why faiths appear so different. That's why they  reflect their cultures. Jesus was not a cultural construct he was a real guy with a history so he was the person he was and he was adapted to the culture of his day.

Christians believe that Jesus is necessary to salvation,I believe this. But it is not necessarily the case that one must know this to be saved. If one is saved it is Jesus who does the saving. it is not necessarily the case that only people who know this are saved. Since this is a theological issue we turn to the theology of St. Paul for an answer. On Mars Hill he told the Greek philosophers they knew God. He told them he came to proclaim to them what they already knew.
26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’[a] As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’[3]
Of course we laugh at the primitive naivete of this statement.There is a deeper meaning under there, that God is interacting with people of all cultures and that different cultures are not boundaries for belief but that God is Interconnecting with each one. God is near to us all he's drawing us all. Are all saved? Paul indicates that all have the moral law written upon the heart and if we are true to that moral law we may be saved:

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a]To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.[4]
This is not an argument that one can cease seeking or that we don't need Jesus. Jesus is truth we should keep the whole truth, We don't need to feel that those not in the Christian club are necessarily going to t to hell. The good news is we can turn to Jesus and know God this is not negated by the bad news that 60% of the world is going to hell.[5]


c. theodisy 

But then why does the truth of God seem so not obvious? It's not hidden but it's  not conspicuous.If God wished to get everyone signed up he could hold a press conference the UN building and tell the world. Obviousness there is meant to be a level of seeking.


Let's assume that God's purpose in creation is to create a Moral Universe, that is one in which free moral agents willingly choose the Good. Moral choice requires absolutely that choice be free (thus free will is necessitated). Allowance of free choices requires the risk that the chooser will make evil choices.  The possibility of evil choices is a risk God must run, thus the value of free will outweighs all other considerations, since without it there would be no moral universe and the purpose of creation would be thwarted.This leaves the atheist in the position of demanding to know why God doesn't just tell everyone that he's there, and that he requires moral behavior, and what that entails. Thus there would be no mystery and people would be much less inclined to sin.This is the point where Soteriological Drama figures into it. Argument on Soteriological Drama: No one would seek in the heart. If God was obvious in this way we would all give lip service to it and resent it. Only through searching that one internalizes the values of the search and thus loves having found. Jesus said "he who has been forgiven much loves much."


Life is a "Drama" not for the sake of entertainment, but in the sense that a dramatic tension exists between our ordinary observations of life on a daily basis, and the ultimate goals, ends and purposes for which we are on this earth.Clearly God wants us to seek on a level other than the obvious, daily, demonstrative level or he would have made the situation more plain to us. We can assume that the reason for the "big mystery" is the internalization of choices. If God appeared to the world in open objective fashion and laid down the rules, we would probably all try to follow them, but we would not want to follow them. Thus our obedience would be lip service and not from the heart. Therefore, God wants a heart felt response which is internationalized value system that comes through the search for existential answers; that search is phenomenological; introspective, internal, not amenable to ordinary demonstrative evidence.

This explains why God is not obvious even though he's not exactly hidden. No one who is seeking and not resisting is turned out or condemned even if they don't wind up in the Christian club.


Schallenberg makes a big thing out of hidden evidence. But why would God hide evidence? He did not! It's there for anyone who is willing to experience it. Speaking of that my books shows you the extend of religious experience and how it changes your life, it;s obvious that the experience is there waiting to be experienced for those who seek,

 photo frontcover-v3a_zps9ebf811c.jpg


Order from Amazon 
Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguemnts for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability. Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you. Order from Amazon 



Sources

[1] J.L. Schellenberg, "What Divine Hiddenness Reveals, or How Weak Theistic Evidence is Strong Atheistic Proof," The Secular Web  (2008) on line resource, URL:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/john_schellenberg/hidden.html  acessed 6/20/16

[2] David Ray Griffin, "Charles Hartshorne," in David Ray Griffin, John B. Cobb, Jr., Marcus P. Ford, Pete A. Y. Gunter, and Peter Ochs, Founders of Constructive Postmodern Philosophy: Peirce, James, Bergson, Whitehead, and Hartshorne (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 209. Griffin's writing in this book is quoted extensively in"Charles Hartshorne's Psychicalism".


Quohttp://ppquimby.com/alan/prehen.htm


[3] New International Version®, NIV® Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 byBiblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Read my essay "Why I don't beleive in Hell"
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2013/08/does-bible-really-teach-that-hell-is.html




25 comments:

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

Argument on Soteriological Drama: No one would seek in the heart.

Let me see if I understand this. We are supposed to seek God with the heart, not the intellect. Objective evidence: bad. Gut feelings: good. Got it. So now, can you explain why this must be the case? I mean, it sounds good to say we must seek God with out hearts, but is it really good? Why? What's wrong with using the brain God gave us? My brain tells me the objective evidence just isn't there. Should God have made me stupid? Then I could believe with all my heart, too.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Argument on Soteriological Drama: No one would seek in the heart.

Let me see if I understand this. We are supposed to seek God with the heart, not the intellect. Objective evidence: bad. Gut feelings: good. Got it.

No you don't get it. Not what I said Since I do logical God arguments obviously I support using both,


So now, can you explain why this must be the case? I mean, it sounds good to say we must seek God with out hearts, but is it really good?

yes

Why? What's wrong with using the brain God gave us?

brains tells us we should use the most effective means of finding truth; if God reveals himself that is obviously the most effective.


My brain tells me the objective evidence just isn't there.

I have proven there is time and time again. Like an ignorant child you refuse to read my book for really stupid reasons.

Should God have made me stupid? Then I could believe with all my heart, too.

apparently he did.

we don't have the tools or the insight to go all the way. There will always be a gap in knowledge and the spirit can fill that gap. your childish inability to consider differed kinds of knowledge shows the limitations of your view.

im-skeptical said...

No you don't get it. Not what I said Since I do logical God arguments obviously I support using both
- There is evidence and there is argument. What is evidence? It is what we observe. What is argument? Is is what we do to convince ourselves and others of what the evidence means. Try to keep that distinction in mind. And let us review some of the things you said:

prehension, the nonsensory sympathetic perception of antecedent experiences

But this is at an unconscious level. However, in some people, this direct prehension of the "Holy" rises to the level of conscious experience. We generally call theses people "mystics".

we are getting it at an instinctive or subliminal level and to understand it we have to formulate ideas based upon the impressions.

It's not hidden but it's not conspicuous

God is not obvious even though he's not exactly hidden.

But why would God hide evidence? He did not! It's there for anyone who is willing to experience it.

When Schellenberg says that evidence is hidden, he's talking about objective evidence for God. When you say it's not really hidden, you're talking about subjective mystical experience. So now, we're talking about two different kinds of evidence: objective (what is visible to the world) and subjective (a private experience - a gut feeling). But the objective evidence does not tell the same story as mystical experience. And this is where the argument comes into play. Scientists tell us that we have to rely on objective observations. You are telling us that we have to rely on that gut feeling. But you try to use science to bridge the gap. Your argument is that science can give us reason to trust those subjective experiences. But with the distinction that we have noted in mind, the evidence for God is still what it is: subjective mystical experience. The objective evidence for God is absent. And furthermore, the subjective evidence is not available to all of us. As you say, we are "resistant".

So what is one to believe if he hasn't felt this mystical experience (or if he has had a natural peak experience but doesn't see that as evidence for God). Objective evidence tells a story, as I said. It doesn't tell a story of God. Science gives us a naturalistic understanding of the world. This is how the non-believer uses his brain - to interpret what he sees in the best way he can.

But you tell us that the non-believer is resistant. How does one turn off that resistance? He has to accept belief. He has to ignore his best interpretation of the objective evidence, and and place his trust in religious faith. But he can't do that as long as his scientifically-minded brain is functioning.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
No you don't get it. Not what I said Since I do logical God arguments obviously I support using both
- There is evidence and there is argument. What is evidence? It is what we observe. What is argument? Is is what we do to convince ourselves and others of what the evidence means. Try to keep that distinction in mind. And let us review some of the things you said:

You do not know shit about argumentation. I was a college debater and I studied argumet as a communication major. I know far more than you do..

prehension, the nonsensory sympathetic perception of antecedent experiences

But this is at an unconscious level. However, in some people, this direct prehension of the "Holy" rises to the level of conscious experience. We generally call theses people "mystics".

we are getting it at an instinctive or subliminal level and to understand it we have to formulate ideas based upon the impressions.

You looked it up I'm not impressed.

It's not hidden but it's not conspicuous

God is not obvious even though he's not exactly hidden.

But why would God hide evidence? He did not! It's there for anyone who is willing to experience it.

When Schellenberg says that evidence is hidden, he's talking about objective evidence for God. When you say it's not really hidden, you're talking about subjective mystical experience.

No, that too but also any Logical God argument such as ontological or cosmological

So now, we're talking about two different kinds of evidence: objective (what is visible to the world) and subjective (a private experience - a gut feeling). But the objective evidence does not tell the same story as mystical experience. And this is where the argument comes into play.

They both refer to the same object, ie God, take different ways getting there.


Scientists tell us that we have to rely on objective observations.


ahahhahahahha, you claim to like Popper and to understand him but now you set up scientists as authorities on truth, that's Anti Popperian. What scientists tell us we have to use objective observations and for what??" science has no place in discussing God.

You are telling us that we have to rely on that gut feeling.

N there is more to personal experience than a gut feeling.

But you try to use science to bridge the gap. Your argument is that science can give us reason to trust those subjective experiences. But with the distinction that we have noted in mind, the evidence for God is still what it is: subjective mystical experience. The objective evidence for God is absent. And furthermore, the subjective evidence is not available to all of us. As you say, we are "resistant".

There is no objective evidence there is no objective human mind. Objectivity is a cultural construct. There is no dearth of the Kimd of evidence you think is objective. The evidence for the validity of mystical experience is valid scientific hard evidence..

So what is one to believe if he hasn't felt this mystical experience (or if he has had a natural peak experience but doesn't see that as evidence for God). Objective evidence tells a story, as I said. It doesn't tell a story of God. Science gives us a naturalistic understanding of the world. This is how the non-believer uses his brain - to interpret what he sees in the best way he can.

You assertions about what is objective evidence and what is not is not based upon objective criteria but upon ideology,

But you tell us that the non-believer is resistant. How does one turn off that resistance? He has to accept belief. He has to ignore his best interpretation of the objective evidence, and and place his trust in religious faith. But he can't do that as long as his scientifically-minded brain is functioning.

No that is an ideological reading, of course that is resisting, you have to resisting. You should nit give up critical faculties but critical facitules and resisting are differnt,

im-skeptical said...

Joe, looking at the natural world and seeing God is ideological.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Not necessarily. you are begging the question, You assert no God so you discount all evidence for God. When I discovered the reality of God I was opposed to the idea of God/ It was counter to my ideology.

im-skeptical said...

Religion is ideology. It drives your life. It consumes every waking moment and motivates your thinking and everything you do. Lack of religion is not an ideology. You may have told yourself you were stepping away from religion temporarily when you were younger, but you never completely abandoned belief. It was drilled into you, and it can't easily be removed. So all during that time, you were longing to return. You felt that you were being bad or rebellious, because you could never really put belief behind you. And you are like many others who followed a similar path. They always return to religion because they never really gave up belief. That's just what they told themselves.

But there are others who actually don't believe, either because it wasn't drilled into them as children, or because they have seen and understood the compelling evidence that nature has to offer. These people are not rebelling. You can't rebel against something that does not exist. They are not afraid of what will happen after they die. There is nothing to be afraid of. Their life isn't ruled by religious belief. And yet, some of them (like me) argue against the things you believe. Why do they do that? I can answer for myself. Everywhere I turn, everywhere I look, there are religionists, and they want to rule my life. They want to tell me what I can't do and what I must do. They want to drill their beliefs into my children. They aren't satisfied to just live their own lives and leave me alone. They have to insert themselves into every corner of my life.

And they are oh-so-smug about it. Because they KNOW they are right, and they have no respect for those who don't agree. Your hatred of "new atheists" really shows. It oozes from practically everything you say. I asked myself what distinguishes a new atheist from an old atheist? It is their outspoken manner that you can't abide. You can tolerate atheists as long as they don't argue too strongly or make too much noise. The good ones don't push back. But I do.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Religion is ideology. It drives your life. It consumes every waking moment and motivates your thinking and everything you do.

That is rubbish. It might be true for a good Christian but not for a lousy one like me. Anti-religion is an ideology that consumes your every moment and prevents rational thought.


Lack of religion is not an ideology.

You don't a mere lack of religion you have the religion of anit-realign

You may have told yourself you were stepping away from religion temporarily when you were younger, but you never completely abandoned belief.

you don't know shit about me. I will bet that no one ever completely is without belief. Somewhere in the back of your mind you are scared to death God is real.


It was drilled into you, and it can't easily be removed. So all during that time, you were longing to return. You felt that you were being bad or rebellious, because you could never really put belief behind you.

You have no idea what I felt because I am much smarter than you are you can't know how I think. I never longed to return what hogwash! That must be what you feel you must long to return to the faith your childhood.


And you are like many others who followed a similar path. They always return to religion because they never really gave up belief. That's just what they told themselves.


That's the little mythology you tell yourself so you can pretend you have insight you can't know how I think because I'm smarter and I have deeper sensibilities.

But there are others who actually don't believe, either because it wasn't drilled into them as children, or because they have seen and understood the compelling evidence that nature has to offer. These people are not rebelling. You can't rebel against something that does not exist.

That is rubbish. You need to tell yourself this because its part of the mythology as athirst superiority. You reason about feelings the way a boy does in junior high. I notice you have unveil your little narrative you just deal with ideas or facts. That says a lot about the way you don't think


They are not afraid of what will happen after they die. There is nothing to be afraid of.

You are clearly scared to death, No adult would bring that into a conversation unless it was praying on his mind, you are whistling in the dark. You think these things are Germain to me because they are to you.


Their life isn't ruled by religious belief. And yet, some of them (like me) argue against the things you believe.

you believe. you know it's real you are scared to death, you will stand before God your little fake psychology will fail you.


Why do they do that? I can answer for myself. Everywhere I turn, everywhere I look, there are religionists, and they want to rule my life. They want to tell me what I can't do and what I must do. They want to drill their beliefs into my children. They aren't satisfied to just live their own lives and leave me alone. They have to insert themselves into every corner of my life.

you are a fruit cake. You are the kind of person who can't stand to be disagreed with. That is so bleeding obsessives. Most people don't talk bout religion and a lo of them don't care what you believe. You are paranoids. You can't allow other people to believe something you want to be true.

And they are oh-so-smug about it. Because they KNOW they are right, and they have no respect for those who don't agree.

You are almost raving. lighten up


Your hatred of "new atheists" really shows. It oozes from practically everything you say. I asked myself what distinguishes a new atheist from an old atheist? It is their outspoken manner that you can't abide. You can tolerate atheists as long as they don't argue too strongly or make too much noise. The good ones don't push back. But I do.


I don't hate you. We could be friends. maybe after your get therapy. This is a pathetic display.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

that should have said you can't allow others to believe something you don't want to be true.

im-skeptical said...

You don't a mere lack of religion you have the religion of anit-realign
- Any evidence of that? Perhaps something I said?

I will bet that no one ever completely is without belief. Somewhere in the back of your mind you are scared to death God is real.
- Your judgment is based on your own experience. You don't know what it's like to be free of religious belief.

You have no idea what I felt because I am much smarter than you are you can't know how I think. I never longed to return what hogwash! That must be what you feel you must long to return to the faith your childhood.
- I have read many stories of return to faith. There are common elements among them.

That is rubbish. You need to tell yourself this because its part of the mythology as athirst superiority.
- I'm just speaking from the perspective of one who really is free from religious belief.

You are clearly scared to death, No adult would bring that into a conversation unless it was praying on his mind, you are whistling in the dark. You think these things are Germain to me because they are to you.
- My understanding of your mind-set is based on what you tell me - not a projection of my own.

you believe. you know it's real you are scared to death, you will stand before God your little fake psychology will fail you.
- You see - that's projection.

you are a fruit cake. You are the kind of person who can't stand to be disagreed with. That is so bleeding obsessives. Most people don't talk bout religion and a lo of them don't care what you believe.
- How many blogs do you have? How many words have you written about religion? As far as I know, you have never done anything else in your adult life. Who is obsessed? And who can't stand to be disagreed with? Which of us deletes comments that are uncomfortable? Which of us is always making ad hominem attacks, and juvenile retorts?

I don't hate you. We could be friends. maybe after your get therapy. This is a pathetic display.
- Indeed.

JAB128 said...

Mark Passio would say that Skep is too much into left-brain thinking (left-brain imbalanced people usually are atheists and solipsists).

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

im-skeptical said...
You don't a mere lack of religion you have the religion of anit-realign
- Any evidence of that? Perhaps something I said?

read your words

joe:I will bet that no one ever completely is without belief. Somewhere in the back of your mind you are scared to death God is real.


- Your judgment is based on your own experience. You don't know what it's like to be free of religious belief.

Bull shit. You can't accept that I was an atheist that would disproven your mythology. So you have to assert that I was not a real atheist, I was better one than you are. I was total absolutely convinced there was no God and I was not afraid. You know nothing, You can't accept the fact that your bighted assumptions about religion are crap.

Joe:You have no idea what I felt because I am much smarter than you are you can't know how I think. I never longed to return what hogwash! That must be what you feel you must long to return to the faith your childhood.


- I have read many stories of return to faith. There are common elements among them.

There are common elements in being a bighted God hatter too, Doesn't prove I was not a real atheist.



Joe:That is rubbish. You need to tell yourself this because its part of the mythology as atheist superiority.



- I'm just speaking from the perspective of one who really is free from religious belief.

You are not free that's why you are struggling against it.


You are clearly scared to death, No adult would bring that into a conversation unless it was praying on his mind, you are whistling in the dark. You think these things are Germain to me because they are to you.


- My understanding of your mind-set is based on what you tell me - not a projection of my own.

Ni it's not. you filer my words through the lens of your mythology



you believe. you know it's real you are scared to death, you will stand before God your little fake psychology will fail you.


- You see - that's projection.

Your projection

you are a fruit cake. You are the kind of person who can't stand to be disagreed with. That is so bleeding obsessives. Most people don't talk bout religion and a lo of them don't care what you believe.


- How many blogs do you have? How many words have you written about religion? As far as I know, you have never done anything else in your adult life. Who is obsessed? And who can't stand to be disagreed with? Which of us deletes comments that are uncomfortable? Which of us is always making ad hominem attacks, and juvenile retorts?

I delete comment because I will control my own blog, if I say the thread is closed it's closed. It was not uncomfortable you were saying the same things I knocked them down you kept picking them up.

I don't hate you. We could be friends. maybe after you get therapy. This is a pathetic display.


- Indeed.

then get back to ideas and stop trying to psychologize people.

im-skeptical said...

read your words
- You should. I never said anything like that. My approach to dealing with religion is to try to inform people of the truth. Fact is, I'm not nearly as anti-religion as you are anti-new atheist.

You can't accept that I was an atheist that would disproven your mythology.
- Joe, you admitted that you always had some belief in the back of your mind. You didn't think it was possible for me or anyone else to eliminate it completely. Now, if you ask me, as long as you have that spark of belief, you aren't really an atheist.

You are not free that's why you are struggling against it.
- As I said, you don't know what it's like. And you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Ni it's not. you filer my words through the lens of your mythology
- I filter your words through the lens of realistic understanding. And you are only repeating what I told you.

I delete comment because I will control my own blog, if I say the thread is closed it's closed. It was not uncomfortable you were saying the same things I knocked them down you kept picking them up.
- The last time you did that, you had never said the thread was closed. The time before that, you said it to someone else, and I didn't read that comment. I know you get tired of having your arguments refuted, but that's what debate is about.

then get back to ideas and stop trying to psychologize people.
- I don't call you stupid, like you do to me all the time. I don't keep declaring how much smarter I am than you. I don't make juvenile retorts. I don't get angry and cut off the discussion, like you do. Honestly, Joe, you really do sound immature at times.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

read your words

- You should. I never said anything like that. My approach to dealing with religion is to try to inform people of the truth. Fact is, I'm not nearly as anti-religion as you are anti-new atheist.

Every cultist, every crack pot, every Nazi, every propagandist they are all informing people of the truth, That line marks you as a narrow minded ideologue. You are brimming with hatred for religion; it's obvious, you reek of it. You even invented your own insult term for believers.

You can't accept that I was an atheist that would disprove your mythology.



- Joe, you admitted that you always had some belief in the back of your mind. You didn't think it was possible for me or anyone else to eliminate it completely. Now, if you ask me, as long as you have that spark of belief, you aren't really an atheist.

but you make way too much out of that statmemt, because your little fantasy world depends upon Christianity being a disease and something delimiting. That nagging sense what if there is a God after all? That does not mean I was not a totally convinced atheist.

You are not free that's why you are struggling against it.


- As I said, you don't know what it's like. And you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Ni it's not. you filer my words through the lens of your mythology


- I filter your words through the lens of realistic understanding. And you are only repeating what I told you.

ahahahahahaahahhahhahahaah, you are in the dark. You don't understand the basics. Religion is the greatest evil responsible for all social ills; it's organized crime it's worse than drugs. It is a drug and a disease. real realistic. you can't even admit the red cross and salvation army do good.

I delete comment because I will control my own blog, if I say the thread is closed it's closed. It was not uncomfortable you were saying the same things I knocked them down you kept picking them up.


- The last time you did that, you had never said the thread was closed. The time before that, you said it to someone else, and I didn't read that comment. I know you get tired of having your arguments refuted, but that's what debate is about.

Yes I did

then get back to ideas and stop trying to psychologize people.


- I don't call you stupid, like you do to me all the time. I don't keep declaring how much smarter I am than you. I don't make juvenile retorts. I don't get angry and cut off the discussion, like you do. Honestly, Joe, you really do sound immature at times.
5:54 PM


stop psychologizing believers you lack the skills and triaging and you are far too biased and bent with hate to do it fairly,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

read your words

- You should. I never said anything like that. My approach to dealing with religion is to try to inform people of the truth. Fact is, I'm not nearly as anti-religion as you are anti-new atheist.

Every cultist, every crack pot, every Nazi, every propagandist they are all informing people of the truth, That line marks you as a narrow minded ideologue. You are brimming with hatred for religion; it's obvious, you reek of it. You even invented your own insult term for believers.

You can't accept that I was an atheist that would disprove your mythology.



- Joe, you admitted that you always had some belief in the back of your mind. You didn't think it was possible for me or anyone else to eliminate it completely. Now, if you ask me, as long as you have that spark of belief, you aren't really an atheist.

but you make way too much out of that statmemt, because your little fantasy world depends upon Christianity being a disease and something delimiting. That nagging sense what if there is a God after all? That does not mean I was not a totally convinced atheist.

You are not free that's why you are struggling against it.


- As I said, you don't know what it's like. And you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Ni it's not. you filer my words through the lens of your mythology


- I filter your words through the lens of realistic understanding. And you are only repeating what I told you.

ahahahahahaahahhahhahahaah, you are in the dark. You don't understand the basics. Religion is the greatest evil responsible for all social ills; it's organized crime it's worse than drugs. It is a drug and a disease. real realistic. you can't even admit the red cross and salvation army do good.

I delete comment because I will control my own blog, if I say the thread is closed it's closed. It was not uncomfortable you were saying the same things I knocked them down you kept picking them up.


- The last time you did that, you had never said the thread was closed. The time before that, you said it to someone else, and I didn't read that comment. I know you get tired of having your arguments refuted, but that's what debate is about.

Yes I did

then get back to ideas and stop trying to psychologize people.


- I don't call you stupid, like you do to me all the time. I don't keep declaring how much smarter I am than you. I don't make juvenile retorts. I don't get angry and cut off the discussion, like you do. Honestly, Joe, you really do sound immature at times.
5:54 PM


stop psychologizing believers you lack the skills and triaging and you are far too biased and bent with hate to do it fairly,

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the only time i've gotten mad is when you berate and lie about my academic achievements, The regular rubbish you say does not make me mad. It amuses me but does not anger me.

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

You even invented your own insult term for believers.
- I refer you to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: religionist

Now let me repeat a few of your own recent remarks to me:

Every cultist, every crack pot, every Nazi, every propagandist they are all informing people of the truth, That line marks you as a narrow minded ideologue. You are brimming with hatred for religion; it's obvious, you reek of it.

your little fantasy world depends upon Christianity being a disease and something delimiting

you are in the dark. You don't understand the basics. Religion is the greatest evil responsible for all social ills; it's organized crime it's worse than drugs. It is a drug and a disease. real realistic. you can't even admit the red cross and salvation army do good.

stop psychologizing believers you lack the skills and triaging and you are far too biased and bent with hate to do it fairly


- And you don't think you're "psychologizing" me????? You think I'm biased????? You think I'm full of hatred????? When did I ever say any of these things you accuse me of? I'd like to see actual quotes - not just "Read your words." I'd like to see you take off the veil of religionism - just for a moment - and open your eyes. Then read what you have said to me.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

- And you don't think you're "psychologizing" me????? You think I'm biased?????

No that is not psychologizing, That is one thing, I don't pretend I know all about you by that one thing.

You think I'm full of hatred????? When did I ever say any of these things you accuse me of? I'd like to see actual quotes - not just "Read your words."

Yo need not say "I am full of hate: for us to know that you are. I already gave reasons,


I'd like to see you take off the veil of religionism - just for a moment - and open your eyes. Then read what you have said to me.

I remember how I saw things as an atheist. I did not hate and I did blame religion for all my problems. I was a more rational and mature atheist than you are.
9:48 AM

im-skeptical said...

So no quotes, huh? Of course not. Because I never said anything like that. And I don't think the way you accuse me of. You are projecting your own hatred and bias onto me. You are "psychologizing"

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Stop being obtuse. You don't have to say "I am full of hate" to be obvious about that! I've never seen you write anything positive about religion. It's obvious. you even constricted a little narrative about me that nothing to do with the real me. It's an act of hate. Having derogatory names for the opponent is an act of hate.

im-skeptical said...

Joe, arguing against something is not the same as hating it. Yes, I argue against religion. Why? Because it's bullshit. It's illogical, and unsupported by real objective evidence (despite what you claim). It arises largely from wishful thinking. People want to live forever, and that's what religion promises. But that's a fairy tale. I don't hate religion, but I feel sorry for people who devote their lives to it. And the thing I hate is when people (whether religionists or not) try to restrict my freedom and run my life. That's something that everyone hates. So as long as you're not doing that, I don't hate you. But I still think religion is bullshit.

I have argued a lot with religious believers. I've been doing it for years, with many different people. I've had many good, engaging debates. That doesn't mean I think I won the argument. It means those opponents were mature and intelligent. They argued the issues at hand without getting personal, without insulting, and without getting emotional. Not all of them, mind you. But it's always a pleasure to engage in debate with someone like that.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe, arguing against something is not the same as hating it. Yes, I argue against religion. Why? Because it's bullshit. It's illogical, and unsupported by real objective evidence (despite what you claim). It arises largely from wishful thinking. People want to live forever, and that's what religion promises. But that's a fairy tale.


Clearly an atheist who thought of that. Most people who have actual expiries of God are not concerned with afterlife, we Know that is taken care of. But what's pressing is the here and now.. God is here is here in the here and now. It's the atheist who fears death, because he knows he's damned. After life was nit much of a factor in my conversion, It was after thought. It did cross my mined but was not reason for belief.


I don't hate religion, but I feel sorry for people who devote their lives to it.

self awareness is a mark of maturity. Lack of same is a mark of immaturity you exude hatred. I think all who deal with you know that.


And the thing I hate is when people (whether religionists or not) try to restrict my freedom and run my life. That's something that everyone hates. So as long as you're not doing that, I don't hate you. But I still think religion is bullshit.


I don't give a damn about your life. WEll I wish you the best no ill will but I have no interest in your decisions or your comings and going,

I have argued a lot with religious believers. I've been doing it for years, with many different people. I've had many good, engaging debates. That doesn't mean I think I won the argument. It means those opponents were mature and intelligent. They argued the issues at hand without getting personal, without insulting, and without getting emotional. Not all of them, mind you. But it's always a pleasure to engage in debate with someone like that.


You don't know enough about logic and are not objective enough to know when you lose or why. I bet you think you won most of our encounters. Most of the time it's just a matter you gainsaying the evidence. You refuse to believe the evidence because you don't want it to be true.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

ps I doubt my own objectivity so I don't think "I won that." It's not important to me. I try to take each individual argument as it comes. I consider arguments apart from who makes them. This is what I learned in College debate.