Re: Metacrock v.s Michael Hill: God Corrolate argument
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:04 am
Atheists see things the way they are without looking for god or any other kind of superstitious ideas in something. They will not see what you see because you are looking for god and so believing he is there in everything.
Your brain works on milligrams of certain chemicals. When people put anything up to a gram of those chemicals into it, it goes crazy and misfires all over the place, causing hallucinations, waking dreams, making stuff up and so on. Drugs permanently damage the brains of some people so they end up psychotic. Drugs can permanently "rewire the brain". If you have any religion in you (as said in your information), that will bring it out in some kind of good or bad religious experience. They are no more real than dreams.
Dreams are more real for kids, and their parents and others are stuffing them full of religion about this fantastic god, his threats, heaven and hell and all sorts of creepy stuff which can scare little kids into nightmares which can leave a life long impression on them. Psychiatrists tell how the early mind shapes the rest of our lives.
I would certainly not say all mystics take drugs. I would say that many are frauds. Houdini wanted to believe in life after death, and ended up going around exposing all the phonies.
Derren Brown uses people's gullibility and predictability and willingness to believe in magic for something happening rather than reasoning out a mundane explanation to how he does something. I watched a street magician on TV in Manhattan and he did a simple trick for some middle aged women, and one of them looking shocked said: "You didn't just do that".
To quote Gallup, Nov 5, 2012: "Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey". And the actual results: "Obama got 51.1 percent of the popular vote to Mitt Romney's 47.2 percent, a four point margin. (Let's all pause for a moment and savor the fact that history will show that Romney won … 47 percent.) That's a wider margin than George W. Bush won by in 2004."
I don't agree with you so you talk crap about me. What happened to the "be nice" demand?
1. I showed that peer reviewed in such cases is as reliable as creation journals. British newspapers expose people in your field time after time as wrong, wrong, wrong. That does not happen in science.
2. I don't believe your superstitious nonsense so I am living in denial?
3. I gave you the chance to debate with me on REAL science and am still waiting. I will debate REAL science with you anywhere and we'll soon see who knows "shit about science". I think that is your problem. You do know shit about science, but not the facts.
It is FACT that such surveys can be steered where people want them to go by asking leading questions. A number of child abuse cases come down to false memory syndrome, caused by the questions asked.
I did not say all people would have a religious experience but very religious people like you would.
Bible scholars accept that John of Patmos was out of his tiny mind on drugs. Some did not want Revelation included in the bible for that reason.
I am older than you so you did not read the book before I was born, Mr I was an atheist but just gave the game away.
You make empty unscientific claims about god like a little kid talking about Santa Claus, but you have no real world evidence. Were it not for the bible, no one would believe in god (YHWH) or Jesus.
"stop trying to use science when you don't understand it. Many of the researcher are atheists they are all Ph.Ds in social science, you don't really kno9w what peer review is do you?"
Names? The lies some people tell.
Again you claim I do not understand science. OK, why did the big bang not happen? Remember, science and not god. Let's see you use science, smart boy who believes in sky fairies.
M Scale. Would that be Mumbo Jumbo Scale? You hang onto it like a drowning man clutching at straws, when there is nothing there but people's imagination acting on the nonsense other people claim, and hearsay.
Your brain works on milligrams of certain chemicals. When people put anything up to a gram of those chemicals into it, it goes crazy and misfires all over the place, causing hallucinations, waking dreams, making stuff up and so on. Drugs permanently damage the brains of some people so they end up psychotic. Drugs can permanently "rewire the brain". If you have any religion in you (as said in your information), that will bring it out in some kind of good or bad religious experience. They are no more real than dreams.
Dreams are more real for kids, and their parents and others are stuffing them full of religion about this fantastic god, his threats, heaven and hell and all sorts of creepy stuff which can scare little kids into nightmares which can leave a life long impression on them. Psychiatrists tell how the early mind shapes the rest of our lives.
I would certainly not say all mystics take drugs. I would say that many are frauds. Houdini wanted to believe in life after death, and ended up going around exposing all the phonies.
Derren Brown uses people's gullibility and predictability and willingness to believe in magic for something happening rather than reasoning out a mundane explanation to how he does something. I watched a street magician on TV in Manhattan and he did a simple trick for some middle aged women, and one of them looking shocked said: "You didn't just do that".
To quote Gallup, Nov 5, 2012: "Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey". And the actual results: "Obama got 51.1 percent of the popular vote to Mitt Romney's 47.2 percent, a four point margin. (Let's all pause for a moment and savor the fact that history will show that Romney won … 47 percent.) That's a wider margin than George W. Bush won by in 2004."
I don't agree with you so you talk crap about me. What happened to the "be nice" demand?
1. I showed that peer reviewed in such cases is as reliable as creation journals. British newspapers expose people in your field time after time as wrong, wrong, wrong. That does not happen in science.
2. I don't believe your superstitious nonsense so I am living in denial?
3. I gave you the chance to debate with me on REAL science and am still waiting. I will debate REAL science with you anywhere and we'll soon see who knows "shit about science". I think that is your problem. You do know shit about science, but not the facts.
It is FACT that such surveys can be steered where people want them to go by asking leading questions. A number of child abuse cases come down to false memory syndrome, caused by the questions asked.
I did not say all people would have a religious experience but very religious people like you would.
Bible scholars accept that John of Patmos was out of his tiny mind on drugs. Some did not want Revelation included in the bible for that reason.
I am older than you so you did not read the book before I was born, Mr I was an atheist but just gave the game away.
You make empty unscientific claims about god like a little kid talking about Santa Claus, but you have no real world evidence. Were it not for the bible, no one would believe in god (YHWH) or Jesus.
"stop trying to use science when you don't understand it. Many of the researcher are atheists they are all Ph.Ds in social science, you don't really kno9w what peer review is do you?"
Names? The lies some people tell.
Again you claim I do not understand science. OK, why did the big bang not happen? Remember, science and not god. Let's see you use science, smart boy who believes in sky fairies.
M Scale. Would that be Mumbo Jumbo Scale? You hang onto it like a drowning man clutching at straws, when there is nothing there but people's imagination acting on the nonsense other people claim, and hearsay.