tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post3728095641618536165..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Psychology, Atheists, and Mystical ExperienceJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84815401084506394412018-11-04T08:27:37.225-08:002018-11-04T08:27:37.225-08:00BLIND. You are totally blind to what I say.BLIND. You are totally blind to what I say.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-82667671824236237412018-11-03T23:15:09.355-07:002018-11-03T23:15:09.355-07:00I told you it's closedI told you it's closedJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39652164471330927492018-11-03T23:13:36.947-07:002018-11-03T23:13:36.947-07:00can the hysterics, you did say filtered,There is ...can the hysterics, you did say filtered,There is no real difference in the two, Stop acting like it somehow vindicates your stupidity it does not!Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7659190571958438612018-11-03T10:00:08.654-07:002018-11-03T10:00:08.654-07:00Joe, I wish you'd learn to read. I NEVER said...Joe, I wish you'd learn to read. I NEVER said the M-scale filters out atheists. I said it filters out various interpretations of the peak experience that are not deemed to be "genuine", regardless of who has them. YOU are the one who filters out atheists. You simply don't hear anything but your own narrow view. You certainly don't hear what I'm trying to tell you. im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73118118536012477022018-11-03T01:35:06.435-07:002018-11-03T01:35:06.435-07:00you said filter them out, filtering out is excludi...you said filter them out, filtering out is excluding<br /><br />" I know he's religious, and I know he uses this M-scale to put a scientific spin on religious belief. And I know you buy it, while ignoring the mainstream scientific community, because it's what you want to hear."<br /><br />you are quite an imbecile. The test is worded to allow high score in spite of not being religious how does that privilege religious belief?<br /><br />you never said what religious organization Hood headed?, what church does he go to if he;'s so religious?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33761643734952714872018-11-02T09:13:38.094-07:002018-11-02T09:13:38.094-07:00Listen, you moron. I NEVER SAID IT EXCLUDES ATHEI...Listen, you moron. I NEVER SAID IT EXCLUDES ATHEISTS.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21146639413410086852018-11-01T23:58:58.225-07:002018-11-01T23:58:58.225-07:00thread closedthread closedJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13877830384298598192018-11-01T23:58:36.083-07:002018-11-01T23:58:36.083-07:00Listen Skep stop making it about yiour self wroth,...Listen Skep stop making it about yiour self wroth, who knows more science is irrelevant, its not a matter of being science worthy to win an argument you have to be on point.<br /><br />this has degenerated into ego involvement os i;m closing it,<br /><br /><b>THREAT CLOSED!</b>,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57377954232053471092018-11-01T23:19:20.591-07:002018-11-01T23:19:20.591-07:00Metacrock:Skep I know it's a struggle for you ...<b>Metacrock:</b>Skep I know it's a struggle for you to read but read this post it will show how the scale works and why your ideas of it are wrong ... the Empirical Study of Mystical Experience<br /><br /><br />- Joe, there isn't one word in that article that I haven't heard from you already - numerous times. What new piece of information do you expect me to get from this? <br /><br /><b>Obviously you don't understand it. The statements you make about "it's excluding atheists" when the test is worded to exclude the bias of belief in God, shows me you don't get any of it. You don't get the first thing of how it works,</b><br /><br /><br /><br />The thing is, I do understand scientific analysis. I understand it far better than you can ever hope to.<br /><br /><b>this is not really a matter of scientific analysis you don't understand how the M scale distinguishes real mystical experience from false, because if you did you would see why it can't exclude atheist experience, So you don't get that but that's not so much science as good reading stills, you don;'t have them.<br /><br />I'm not going to play that little ego involvement game trying to make yourself feel important n because you are Superior to some "out group" that doesn't adhere to your ideological indoctrination, don't say that again because I wont tolerate it.</b> <br /><br /><br /> I've done plenty of it myself. You can stop the pretense of intellectual superiority. You're not fooling anyone, except perhaps for one or two of your most avid followers.<br /><br /><b>Plenty of what? Bull shit? I've noticed.</b><br /><br />And it's because I understand that I am able to make criticism.<br /><br /><b>Your criticisms are stupid, they are jack ass assertions you could not be more wrong,</b><br /><br /><br /> I explained the major problem with Hood's work, <br /><br /><b>hahahahahhahahahahahahhahabahahahahahahahahhhahahm I corrected the work of upstart Hawking, for some reason he insists that he knows more than I do, That can't be because he doesn't subscribe to my worldview. You are good for a laugh anyway.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81702198247969119482018-11-01T15:09:57.639-07:002018-11-01T15:09:57.639-07:00Skep I know it's a struggle for you to read bu...<i>Skep I know it's a struggle for you to read but read this post it will show how the scale works and why your ideas of it are wrong ... the Empiroical Study of Mystical Experience</i><br /> - Joe, there isn't one word in that article that I haven't heard from you already - numerous times. What new piece of information do you expect me to get from this? <br /><br />The thing is, I do understand scientific analysis. I understand it far better than you can ever hope to. I've done plenty of it myself. You can stop the pretense of intellectual superiority. You're not fooling anyone, except perhaps for one or two of your most avid followers.<br /><br />And it's because I understand that I am able to make criticism. I explained the major problem with Hood's work, and you just don't get it. It sails right past you. You misinterpret what I'm telling you precisely because you don't understand it. And then you try to tell me how stupid and ignorant I am. Lay off, Joe. Trust me on this. It only reveals your own level of intellect.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68836468916060283252018-11-01T14:05:38.284-07:002018-11-01T14:05:38.284-07:00Skep I know it's a struggle for you to read b...Skep I know it's a struggle for you to read but read this post it will show how the scale works and why your ideas of it are wrong<br /><br /><a href="https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-empirical-study-of-mystical.html" rel="nofollow"><b>the Empiroical Study of Mystical Experience</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43224081831311909282018-11-01T13:56:20.261-07:002018-11-01T13:56:20.261-07:00y
- yes, it does exclude all interpretations that...y<br /><br />- yes, it does exclude all interpretations that are not deemed to be "genuine". That's what you can't get through your head.<br /><br /><b>stop pretending you know how it works is dumb I'm not going to talk to you about this any more, you don not understand it and you think you know all about it Read the post I did on Wednesday because that explains it all.</b><br /><br /><b>ME is not a feeling, M scale does not weed out false experiences on the basis of just deeming the not genuine,</b><br /><br /><b>go read the last post I did and learn something about it</b><br /><br />You have not read Stace you don;t know that he says that.You are just assuming it because it;s necessary to your little delusional world of dismissing Hood. Listen Trump you are in the bubble,of your own delusional world. I've already told you that that concept need not necessarily be about God<br /><br />- But it IS about God. You said so yourself. You believe this common core, this sense of ultimate reality is God. And you believe that an atheist who has this feeling is really experiencing God.<br /><br /><b>don;t be daft, you don;t know shit about God or belief in God. You have no basis for the term a natural emotion,: Mystical experience is not an emotion it;s a level of consciousness, You are trying to sound quasi scientific but you know the first thing about it</b><br /><br />- It's a natural emotion, Joe. That's what science tells us. That's what Maslow believed, and any real scientist who has ever investigated these things.<br /><br /><br /><b>it is not an emotion its a level of consciousness, emotions are like pity love, anger. ME includes sensation but sensation is not emotion, per se. putting your hand real cold water is a sensation, it's not an emotion, ME is also consciousness because it raises the level of awareness of the nature of being, that i not emotion,</b> <br /><br />9:40 AM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-45213266612898901842018-11-01T13:33:04.324-07:002018-11-01T13:33:04.324-07:00ME: I just told you mystical means an ex-experienc...ME: I just told you mystical means an ex-experience beyond one's conceptual ability to understand,do you not understand the concept of "tendnecy?"<br /><br /><br />- "beyond one's conceptual ability to understand" equates to something transcendental. But just because many people don't understand the emotional feeling they are having is no reason to assert that it is anything more than a natural emotion.<br /><br /><b>Transcendental does not expatiate to God or to transcendent, transcendental //= transcend, leash something. Even transcendent does not necessarily mean God, But show me where Hood says ME is transcendent. Natural does not preclude transcendent.<br /><br />You do not know what transcendental means,</b><br /><br />I say that rather than believe you're so stupid you keep referring to things I've answered as though I didn't answer them because you just don't get it,rather than believe that I believe you didn't read it<br /><br />- You are impervious to my responses. I answer your statements, and it's as if I never said anything at all. You completely fail to understand.<br /><br /><br /><b>your answers always show extreme ignorance,like the one above,</b><br /><br />That's what we are talking about He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief.<br /><br /><b>rather than serious it should sacrilegious</b><br /><br />- Listen to what I'm saying for once. I'll put it in plain English. I get that Hood has a version of the questionnaire for people who don't make an explicitly religious interpretation of it. What the M-scale is looking for is the "common core" of Stace. It's what Hood has equated with this "sense of unity" or "ultimate reality". Even an atheist can have this kind of feeling without seeing it as God. I GET THAT. Now YOU get this: the M-scale filters out anyone who doesn't report that kind of feeling, telling us that it's not a "genuine mystical experience".<br /><br /><br /><b>tell me how it does that genius? how does it do that? it does't score those kind of answers lower so how does it filter them out?<br /><br />let;s also remember you do not know shit about this,you have never seen an M scale or even a single question from one,</b><br /><br />He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief.<br /><br /><br /><b>you have no idea what that means, when I said it can be used to tell real mystical experience form false one you have no idea how it does it, you are only conjecturing that this has some means of excluding certain types of answers,, since you don;t know how it works you can;t know,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50415512067424534462018-11-01T09:41:24.538-07:002018-11-01T09:41:24.538-07:00NO HE DOES NOT HAVE A RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY YOU ARE J...<i>NO HE DOES NOT HAVE A RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY YOU ARE JUST DOING THAT THROUGH GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. YOU DON'T KNOW FUCKING SHIT ABOUT HOOD</i><br />- I know he's religious, and I know he uses this M-scale to put a scientific spin on religious belief. And I know you buy it, while ignoring the mainstream scientific community, because it's what you want to hear.<br /><br /><i>It's completely obvious that you lack the conceptual machinery to understand how the test works.</i><br />- Say what you want about me. It's obvious that you are blinded by your religious ideology.<br /><br /><i>Not all people sense that as a relation to any kind of deity, or maybe they do and they interpret t it differently,But the point is there's nothing intrinsically religious about undifferentiated unity.</i><br />- I agree that the experience itself is not inherently religious. But that doesn't stop YOU from insisting that it is an experience of God. As far as you're concerned, it IS religious.<br /><br /><i>It's based upon people's actual experiences how could it not be a probability argument? it's inductive.</i><br />- The point is that YOU never spoke of it that way. There's nothing about that in your own argument.<br /><br /><i>Hood has no Religious ideological motive, He opposes social scientists arguing for existence of God. quoting Hood</i><br />- The quote you provide says nothing about arguing for the existence of God. Hood doesn't explicitly do that. He's trying to give his belief a facade of scientific objectivity. But he clearly has stacked the deck.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-50165037213937761412018-11-01T09:40:51.488-07:002018-11-01T09:40:51.488-07:00I just told you mystical means an ex-experience be...<i>I just told you mystical means an ex-experience beyond one's conceptual ability to understand,do you not understand the concept of "tendnecy?"</i><br />- "beyond one's conceptual ability to understand" equates to something transcendental. But just because many people don't understand the emotional feeling they are having is no reason to assert that it is anything more than a natural emotion.<br /><br /><i>I say that rather than believe you're so stupid you keep referring to things I've answered as though I didn't answer them because you just don't get it,rather than believe that I believe you didn't read it</i><br />- You are impervious to my responses. I answer your statements, and it's as if I never said anything at all. You completely fail to understand.<br /><br /><i>That's what we are talking about He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief.</i><br />- Listen to what I'm saying for once. I'll put it in plain English. I get that Hood has a version of the questionnaire for people who don't make an explicitly religious interpretation of it. What the M-scale is looking for is the "common core" of Stace. It's what Hood has equated with this "sense of unity" or "ultimate reality". Even an atheist can have this kind of feeling without seeing it as God. I GET THAT. Now YOU get this: the M-scale filters out anyone who doesn't report that kind of feeling, telling us that it's not a "genuine mystical experience".<br /><br /><i>He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief.</i><br />- yes, it does exclude all interpretations that are not deemed to be "genuine". That's what you can't get through your head.<br /><br /><i>You have not read Stace you don;t know that he says that.You are just assuming it because it;s necessary to your little delusional world of dismissing Hood. Listen Trump you are in the bubble,of your own delusional world. I've already told you that that concept need not necessarily be about God</i><br />- But it IS about God. You said so yourself. You believe this common core, this sense of ultimate reality is God. And you believe that an atheist who has this feeling is really experiencing God.<br /><br /><i>You have no basis for the term a natural emotion,: Mystical experience is not an emotion it;s a level of consciousness, You are trying to sound quasi scientific but you know the first thing about it</i><br />- It's a natural emotion, Joe. That's what science tells us. That's what Maslow believed, and any real scientist who has ever investigated these things.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-74500716932635936082018-10-31T23:53:31.719-07:002018-10-31T23:53:31.719-07:00Highlights
Hood has no Religious ideological mot...<b>Highlights</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Hood has no Religious ideological motive, He opposes social scientists arguing for existence of God. quoting Hood</b><br /><br />"For Some Mystical experience cannot support a belief that one has united with God or experienced ultimate reality, for others mysticism is an experience that provides sufficient warrant for belie in God or ultimate reality....our concern as social scientists ls restricted to the aspect of these literatures that have direct relevance for empirical research. Of immediate concern is the clarification of the nature of mystical experience as well as it's relationship to other forms of mystical experience"[12] <b>[12] Ralph Hood Jr. and Bernard Spilka,et al "Mysticism, Chapter 11, " The Psychology of Religion: A Empirical Approach. 4th Ed.New Yor, Lomdo: Guildord Press. 2009, 332.</b><br /><br /><b>no way to exclude people for their belief or lack of it</b><br /><br />Me: That's what we are talking about He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief. How can he make a version that is not based for belief in God and yet exclude non belief in God?<br /><br /> There's no way to exclude someone from the test on the basis of religious belief (or lack there of) especially in the test that is configured to avoid the bias of religious language. The scoring is tied the specific test,There's no no score for reflecting belief in God.<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81733249358410610132018-10-31T23:36:12.107-07:002018-10-31T23:36:12.107-07:00Joe:Rather than saying it doesn't have a relig...<b>Joe:</b>Rather than saying it doesn't have a religious content that;s why Hood made a non religious version to get over the bais of language, it does not have to have religious content to score high on the M scale it has to have a STace content, ut has to fit Stace's theory<br /><br /><br />- I'm convinced that YOU don't understand it. Hood is still trying to distill the experience down to religious content. He has a version for atheists that doesn't use overtly religious terminology, but the objective is the same.<br /><br /><b>It's completely obvious that you lack the conceptual machinery to understand how the test works. There's no way to exclude someone from the test on the basis of religious belief (or lack there of) especially in the test that is configured to avoid the bias of religious language. The scoring is tied the specific test,There's no no score for reflecting belief in God.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Joe:</b>the basic thing religious experience is is undifferentiated unity that does not have to relate to God or to deity, it usually does in people;s experience but it does't have to he M scale is not designed that way <br /><br /><br />- Yes, it's religious. That's what YOU say. It's right there in your own argument. Science doesn't study "the unity of all things". <br /><br /><b>Not all people sense that as a relation to any kind of deity, or maybe they do and they interpret t it differently,But the point is there's nothing intrinsically religious about undifferentiated unity. If you don't link it and you just ask the question that way with no reference to God how are you going to know who to exclude? </b><br /><br /><br /><br />I also said it;s a probability argument so when it says "the content of mystical experience is about the divine" it means it is probably so because in most cases it tends to be<br /><br />- You never talked about probability when you presented this argument. You are quite clear that the content is divine, and the cause must be divine.<br /><br /><b>It's based upon people's actual experiences how could it not be a probability argument? it's inductive.</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Joe</b>I didn't say that because it's on the M scale I said that because it really does tend to be so. I also think I show that atheists experiences are of God they are just interpreted differently<br /><br /><br />- You insist it's "the divine". But only after the M-scale has rejected everything else. Can't have reality creeping in to mess up your theory. You ignore that peak experiences are NOT always religious in content.<br /><br /><br /><b>Look doufus you don't know how M scale works. There is no way to exclude people;s beliefs, there no questions about doctrine, no questions about beliefs, </b><br /><br />9:00 PM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-39626891375004994712018-10-31T23:35:45.187-07:002018-10-31T23:35:45.187-07:00Joe:
so does mystical; Mystical only Means you ca...<b>Joe:</b> <br />so does mystical; Mystical only Means you can't talk about it<br /><br /><br />- I don't confine it to only what is seen as the experience of God. You do.<br /><br /><b>I just told you mystical means an ex-experience beyond one's conceptual ability to understand,do you not understand the concept of "tendnecy?"</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Joe:</b>you lying little swine I am clearly far better read than you are,jackass ... you are autocratically i;literate you can't even read a blog post,ignorant know nothing <br /><br /><br />- Right, Joe. I've never read anything. I think the real jackass in this conversation is readily apparent.<br /><br /><b>I say that rather than believe you're so stupid you keep referring to things I've answered as though I didn't answer them because you just don't get it,rather than believe that I believe you didn't read it,</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Joe:</b>Remember above you admitted that you base that on the fact he made different versions of the M scale, I said you are think he's excluding atheists but I said he;'s actually including them<br /><br /><br />- You don't get what I was saying. It's not an issue of whether he excludes atheists. I NEVER said that. It's an issue of excluding non-religious interpretations of the experience.<br /><br /><b>That's what we are talking about He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief. How can he make a version that is not based for belief in God and yet exclude non belief in God? Obviously you are wrong, get that I'm going to repeat that </b><br /><br /><b>That's what we are talking about. He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief. How can he make a version that is not based for belief in God and yet exclude non belief in God? Obviously you are wrong, get that I'm going to repeat that </b><br /><br /><b>He's not excluding interpretation he's making versions of the test that are not biased by any particular serious belief. How can he make a version that is not based for belief in God and yet exclude non belief in God?</b><br /> <br /><br /><b>Joe:</b>Obviously we need to be able to determine what the experience is, you can't study it if you can't define it,Hood defined it by Stace's theory he validated Stace to prove his theory was valid.<br /><br /><br />- Your view is restricted to religious content. Stace "defined" it as a feeling of the "unity of all things" - in other words, all things are united in God. <br /><br /><b>You have not read Stace you don;t know that he says that.You are just assuming it because it;s necessary to your little delusional world of dismissing Hood. Listen Trump you are in the bubble,of your own delusional world. I've already told you that that concept need not necessarily be about God,</b><br /><br /><br />But this is NOT a scientific understanding of a natural emotional experience, and the broader scientific community (including Maslow, who you love to quote) agrees with me, not with you.<br /><br /><b>You have no basis for the term a natural emotion,: Mystical experience is not an emotion it;s a level of consciousness, You are trying to sound quasi scientific but you know the first thing about it,</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Reader notice by upping the ante on a bigger lie he removes the focus from the fact that he still has not named the Christian organization,I never said Hood was an atheist I've all along he's unity or Unitarian.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />- The point back then is the same as it is now. It's the fact that he has a RELIGIOUS ideology. It's true, no matter how much you try to deny it.<br /><br /><br /><b>NO HE DOES NOT HAVE A RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY YOU ARE JUST DOING THAT THROUGH GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. YOU DON'T KNOW FUCKING SHIT ABOUT HOOD(i ALREADY QUOTED THE PASSAGE FROM HIS BOOK WHERE HE SAYS THAT AS A SOCIAL SCIENTIST HE'S EXCLUDED FROM ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.</b><br /><br /><b>YOU DID NOT READ IT, HERE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-20283382878709319582018-10-31T21:00:55.120-07:002018-10-31T21:00:55.120-07:00so does mystical Mystical only Means you can't...<i>so does mystical Mystical only Means you can't talk about it</i><br />- I don't confine it to only what is seen as the experience of God. You do.<br /><br /><i>you lying little swine I am clearly far better read than you are,jackass ... you are autocratically literate you can't even read a blog post,ignorant know nothing</i><br />- Right, Joe. I've never read anything. I think the real jackass in this conversation is readily apparent.<br /><br /><i>Remember above you admitted that you base that on the fact he made different versions of the M scale, I said you are think he's excluding atheists but I said he;'s actually including them</i><br />- You don't get what I was saying. It's not an issue of whether he excludes atheists. I NEVER said that. It's an issue of excluding non-religious interpretations of the experience. I agree that an atheist can have a mystical interpretation of a peak experience, or something equivalent. What the M-scale does is set aside any interpretation different from that. That's the problem with your argument. You have only one way of seeing it, and you assume that is the only way that is valid, because you have your M-scale telling you that if it isn't mystical, it isn't real.<br /><br /><i>Obviously we need to be able to determine what the experience is, you can't study it if you can't define it,Hood defined it by Stace's theory he validated Stace to prove his theory was valid</i><br />- Your view is restricted to religious content. Stace "defined" it as a feeling of the "unity of all things" - in other words, all things are united in God. But this is NOT a scientific understanding of a natural emotional experience, and the broader scientific community (including Maslow, who you love to quote) agrees with me, not with you.<br /><br /><i>IReader notice by upping then ante on a bigger lie he removes the focus from the fact that he still has not named the Christian organization,I never said Hood was an atheist I've all along he's unity or Unitarian.</i><br />- The point back then is the same as it is now. It's the fact that he has a RELIGIOUS ideology. It's true, no matter how much you try to deny it.<br /><br /><i>Rather than saying it doesn't have a religious content that;s why Hood made a non religious version to get over the bais of language, it does not have to have religious content to score high on the M scale it has to have a STace content, ut has to fit Stace's theory</i><br />- I'm convinced that YOU don't understand it. Hood is still trying to distill the experience down to religious content. He has a version for atheists that doesn't use overtly religious terminology, but the objective is the same.<br /><br /><i>the basic thing religious experience is is undifferentiated unity that does not have to relate to God or to deity, it usually does in people;s experience but it does't have to he M scale is not designed that way</i><br />- Yes, it's religious. That's what YOU say. It's right there in your own argument. Science doesn't study "the unity of all things". <br /><br /><i>I also said it;s a probability argument so when it says "the content of mystical experience is about the divine" it means it is probably so because in most cases it tends to be</i><br />- You never talked about probability when you presented this argument. You are quite clear that the content is divine, and the cause must be divine. <br /><br /><i>I didn't say that because it's on the M scale I said that because it really does tend to be so. I also think I show that atheists experiences are of God they are just interpreted differently</i><br />- You insist it's "the divine". But only after the M-scale has rejected everything else. Can't have reality creeping in to mess up your theory. You ignore that peak experiences are NOT always religious in content.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-17940596011816212562018-10-31T13:28:30.347-07:002018-10-31T13:28:30.347-07:00Reader notice by upping then ante on a bigger lie ...<b>Reader notice by upping then ante on a bigger lie he removes the focus from the fact that he still has not named the Christian organization,I never said Hood was an atheist I've all along he's unity or Unitarian.</b><br /><br />- First you said he was an atheist.<br /><br /><b>nope another damn lie ,you lie almost as much as Trump.</b><br /><br /><br /><br /> This was a lame attempt to prove me wrong by claiming he was not religious. When I showed that You were wrong (if you want to see where this took place, YOU take the time to find it - I have a life), you changed your claim to Hood not being a Christian, which is still wrong. I don't know what his denomination is, But if he's a unitarian, he's still a Christian.<br /><br /><b>I still don;t see you quotingmeor linkingtomy words,lying shit hole.<br /><br />slandering and lying a lot you are really just about to go byebye from this blog,</b><br /><br />In other words you made it up<br />- Anything outside your little bubble is made up. Fake news! Fake news!<br /><br />(1) No reason why he shouldn't if the goal is to study religions experience then you have to.<br />(2) He makes the obvious distinction but I;m not sure what you mean by separates? Before you were complaining because seperates whatevertahtmeans ?soundslike a contradiction<br />- Joe, your whole argument is based on the claim that mystical experience IS religious in nature. If it doesn't have the religious content that you claim, then your M-scale tells us that it isn't a "genuine" mystical experience. Your book is all about making <br /><br /><br /><b>stop trying to pretend like you understand the scale because you don't<br /><br />when you say:"If it doesn't have the religious content that you claim, then your M-scale tells us that it isn't a genuine" we know you know nothing about because that's the opposite of the way it works,Rather than saying it doens't have a religious content that;s why Hood made a non religious version to get over the bais of language, it does not have to have religious content to score high on the M scale it has to have a STace content, ut has to fit Stace's theory,</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>the basic thing religious experience is is undifferentiated unity that does not have to relate to God or to deity, it usually does in people;s experience but it does't have to he M scale is not designed that way </b><br /><br />the case for this argument. You stated it on your blog. I will repeat it here:<br />(1) Real effects come from real causes<br />(2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real<br />(3) the effects of mystical experience are real<br />(4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.<br />(5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine<br />(6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine<br />(7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.<br />(8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME<br /><br /><b>I also said it;s a probability argument so when it says "the content of mystical experience is about the divine" it means it is probably so because in most cases it tends to be,</b><br /><br />Joe, you go on and on about the M-scale, and how it tells you which experiences are real mystical experiences. And you clearly state in this argument that "the content of mystical experience is about the divine". That obviously excludes any other peak experience that isn't interpreted as religious. All of this comes directly from what YOU have written. <br /><br /><b>I didn't say that because it's on the M scale I said that because it really does tend to be so. I also think I show that atheists experiences are of God they are just interpreted differently</b><br /><br />11:27 AM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-75903122193119882832018-10-31T13:05:28.891-07:002018-10-31T13:05:28.891-07:00Joe:
I don't think "mystical" neces...<b>Joe:</b><br /><br />I don't think "mystical" necessarily connotes religious outlook although "Peak experience" may have been employed as a term to include atheist's experiences.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><b>Skep:</b><br />- Yes, it includes the experience of atheists, and Christians, and non-Christians, and all nationalities, and all walks of life. In short, it includes all of humanity. The term "mystical experience" definitely has a connotation of religious or supernatural content.<br /><br /><b>so does mystical Mystical only Means you can't talk about it</b><br /><br /><br /><b>Joe:</b> you have never read Hood You don't know how he talks, stop slandering people.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><b>Skep:</b>- You refuse to read outside your little bubble. So one-dimensional.<br /><br /><b>that is such bull shit/ you lying little swine I am clearly far better read than you are,jackass. I was in phD program in history of Ideas for 12 years,I studied Derrida for four of those years, read Lacan, and Boriard, Mrx, Gracisce and Trotksy I ran an academic journal on the Frankfort School and read Marcuse, you are autocratically literate you can't even read a blog post,ignorant know nothing,</b><br /><br /><b>Joe:</b>How does it do that exactly? why would he? 90% o people believe in God why would he feel the need to filter out atheist experiences? How do you explain the fact that he made versions of the scale with non Christian langue and with no religious linage? How would that filter out atheist experience?<br /><br /><br />Skep:- Hood attempts to distinguish "true mystical experience" from others. That's a false distinction.<br /><br /><br /><b>Remember above you admitted that you base that on the fact he made different versions of the M scale, I said you are think he's excluding atheists but I said he;'s actually including them.<br /><br />Now it turns out you really don;t understand what it means to be able to tell a true mystical experience from a false one, Obviously we need to be able to determine what the experience is, you can't study it if you can't define it,Hood defined it by Stace's theory he validated Stace to prove his theory was valid,</b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-20685624145346716832018-10-31T11:29:12.790-07:002018-10-31T11:29:12.790-07:00what do you mean by taking a broader view
- Your v...<i>what do you mean by taking a broader view</i><br />- Your view is restricted to the religious aspect. You refuse to open your eyes and see the bigger picture.<br /><br /><i>It's the only field studying religious experience, It has 200 empirical studies not being studied in all the rest of psychology.</i><br />- Yes, if you want to take a restrictive view of religious content in these experiences. But the broader community of psychology ALSO studies these same experiences without taking that restrictive view.<br /><br /><i>you miss the point as usual The only studies in psychology not in pscy of religion that deal with mystical experience are bad studies by people like borg who try to show that it;s bad for you or part of mentalists, no one takes them seriously. I documented Qmq4o qsqyin pscyhologyaess</i><br />- So now you admit that there IS more out there. I don't know Borg, or what his work shows. But I DO know that you automatically dismiss anything outside your little bubble, because it doesn't serve your ideological purpose.<br /><br /><i>I've read Maslow several times Einstein, I quoted him at length in that last post's comment section, I; e quoted him often I read the Peak experience book about five times</i><br />- You cherry-picked a quote to make it sound as if he sees some kind of supernatural content in those experiences. You ignore everything else he says.<br /><br /><i>IfI am trying to make two separate experiences how do you explain what I said in the major blog post of Monday "psychology, Atheists,and Mysical Experiece? "</i><br />- It's the same as what you did with Maslow. You say "the atheist" describes the content of these experiences as "the void", and you equate that with the divine content that you say is experienced by religionists. But that is NOT the way non-religious people interpret it. You are being dishonest. The FACT is that atheists have the same kind of experience without attributing it to some kind of divine or transcendental phenomenon. <br /><br /><i>one of the most important points coming out of Hood's work is the realization that the experiences are the same that's the Stace theory that he set out to validate,teh common Core</i><br />- Stace's <a href="http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-241" rel="nofollow">common core</a> is about the "unity of all things". It is a RELIGIOUS view. What Hood does is to use his M-scale to filter out everything else, and than declare that everyone who has this experience shares the same thing. Well, DUH! Open your eyes, Joe. There's more to it than that. There are other ways of interpreting the experience, and there's NO REAL BASIS for making the arguments and conclusions that you have made.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-11170201540642925922018-10-31T11:27:07.540-07:002018-10-31T11:27:07.540-07:00Reader notice by upping then ante on a bigger lie ...<i>Reader notice by upping then ante on a bigger lie he removes the focus from the fact that he still has not named the Christian organization,I never said Hood was an atheist I've all along he's unity or Unitarian.</i><br />- First you said he was an atheist. This was a lame attempt to prove me wrong by claiming he was not religious. When I showed that You were wrong (if you want to see where this took place, YOU take the time to find it - I have a life), you changed your claim to Hood not being a Christian, which is still wrong. I don't know what his denomination is, But <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism" rel="nofollow">if he's a unitarian, he's still a Christian.</a><br /><br /><i>In other words you made it up</i><br />- Anything outside your little bubble is made up. Fake news! Fake news!<br /><br /><i>(1) No reason why he shouldn't if the goal is to study religions experience then you have to.<br />(2) He makes the obvious distinction but I;m not sure what you mean by separates? Before you were complaining because seperates whatevertahtmeans ?soundslike a contradiction</i><br />- Joe, your whole argument is based on the claim that mystical experience IS religious in nature. If it doesn't have the religious content that you claim, then your M-scale tells us that it isn't a "genuine" mystical experience. Your book is all about making the case for this argument. <a href="https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/10/argument-from-god-corrolate.html" rel="nofollow">You stated it on your blog.</a> I will repeat it here:<br /><i> (1) Real effects come from real causes<br /> (2) If effects are real chances are the cause is real<br /> (3) the effects of mystical experience are real<br /> (4) Therefore, the cause of mystical experience is real.<br /> (5) the content of mystical experience is about the divine<br /> (6) Since the content of ME is divine the cause must be the divine<br /> (7) Since the cause is real and it is divine then the divine must be real.<br /> (8) Therefore belief in the divine is warranted by ME</i><br /><br />Joe, you go on and on about the M-scale, and how it tells you which experiences are real mystical experiences. And you clearly state in this argument that "the content of mystical experience is about the divine". That obviously excludes any other peak experience that isn't interpreted as religious. All of this comes directly from what YOU have written. <br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68336232094820744592018-10-31T08:58:35.975-07:002018-10-31T08:58:35.975-07:00No it's not,i couldn't find a single study...No it's not,i couldn't find a single study on just atheist expediences, Atheism only exists in contradistinction to believers,If there was no religion there would be no atheists,So even an all atheist study would be a psychology of religion study. show me a study on peak experience that makes no reference to religious experience?<br /><br /><br />- You just don't listen. This isn't about atheism vs. religion. It isn't about "atheist experiences" vs. "mystical experiences". It's about the psychology of peak experiences. The term "peak experience:" is more appropriate, because it doesn't try to make that distinction.<br /><br /><b>there I was talking about how the experience is archived not the nature of it, another refutation of your bull shit about two experiences, one of the most important points coming out of Hood's work is the realization that the experiences are the same that's the Stace theory that he set out to validate,teh common Core, All mystical excrescence all religion has a common core its the same experience, they all interroitiot differently</b><br /><br /><br /><br />If Hood is trying to do that how do you explain the fact that he writes about atheists having the experience and he made versions of the M scale with religious references?<br /><br /><br /><b>skep</b>- That's the point. He is making a false distinction. And so are you. The broader scientific community doesn't make that mistake;<br /><br /><b>NOOOOOO! I knew you thought that, when are you going start paying attention? I've explained this many times. he makes different versions test to get around language problems. If I give an atheist a test asking if they felt the pence of God would that make sense? He's going to say no he wold get a low score. asking if he felt the great void or something some general way they get a high score then are counted as mystical they are not kiddie out for screwing high on the atheist test.the multiple versions are inclusive</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86547906245691249082018-10-31T08:57:24.146-07:002018-10-31T08:57:24.146-07:00Hood is an immanent scholar, he's top research...Hood is an immanent scholar, he's top researcher in the field of psychology of religion.<br /><br />- Big fish in a little pond.<br /><br /><b>It's the only field studying religious experience, It has 200 empirical studies not being studied in all the rest of psychology. <br /><br />you still have not documented your little delusion. On the other post I documented that Hood;s journal is number 30 under the heading of sociology with 136 overall that;makes it very important. so your assertion is unsubstantiated as always, still have not done one damn thing to back it up.</b><br /><br /><b>if it's such a small sub group how is it that I have those 200 studies and there;s not one study countering them? there is not one study showing religious experience is bad for you, all work all the research is done in the field none outside of it</b><br /><br /><br />- NOBODY is claiming that religious experiences are bad for you. I've told you over and over again that I don't take issue with those studies. What I take issue with it YOUR INTERPRETATION of them. It doesn't follow from the data, and NONE of those studies make the same conclusion that you do.<br /><br /><b>you miss the point as usual The only studies in psychology not in pscy of religion that deal with mystical experience are bad studies by people like <br />borg who try to show that it;s bad for you or part of mentalists, no one takes them seriously. I documented Qmq4o qsqyin pscyhologyaess ,</b><br /><br /><b>Joe</b>Skepie needs to give atheists their own Godless sense of the numinous and their own Godless undifferentiated unity,So he wants to call Mystical experience:"peak" and pretend it's a different experience even though it is just the same experience but without reference to a religious dimension<br /><br /><br /><b>Skep</b>I have urged you to read Maslow,<br /><br /><b>I've read Maslow several times Einstein, I quoted him at length in that last post's comment section, I; e quoted him often I read the Peak experience book about five times</b><br /><br /><br /> instead of just quote-mining. He addresses this. He notes (as other psychologists do) that we all share the same kind of experiences and feelings. What YOU do (following Hood, with his M-scale) is to separate them into religious vs. non-religious. It's a false distinction.<br /><br />________________<br /><b>IfI am trying to make two separate experiences how do you explain what I said in the major blog post of Monday "psychology, Atheists,and Mysical Experiece? "There is another view that is less denigrating to the atheists, the idea tat both have the same view they just interpret it differently. That is what all mystics do. They experience "it" beyond their understanding they only really understand in the experience but they can't talk about it. To talk about it they must load it into cultural constructs which changes it. Typically mystics try to explain their experiences through their doctrine. Atheists no less so, which means the Catholic says it's the Holy presence and the atheist says i;ts the void, In fact the descriptions of Vedanta sound a lot like atheists but they are not atheists,</b><br />__________________<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com