Stephen Hawking gives up on God!

[showmeproof]

No. the atheists on carm have refused to ever read that. I've linked it to tehm over 200 times none of them will ever read it.I think this must because it disproves the garbage and they know it does.

I'm not going to play that game over here. now you can either read it yourself and see how good it is, or just accept my words without carping.

Or, as I have said before, who are you that we should give credence to your ideas of what does and does not disprove 'garbage'? Why should we spend our time reading your work. Again who are you? I don't mean to be facetious, but first gain the respect of the researchers in the field you are in (philosophy I suppose) with your arguments, contribute to the discussion amongst the professionals, and then comeback and try a sales pitch. Otherwise, humbly explain your opinions. We are all here to listen to each other's opinions and to contribute our own. So again, could you summarize your opinion or would you rather argue by link?

[BlacJac06]

Or, as I have said before, who are you that we should give credence to your ideas of what does and does not disprove 'garbage'? Why should we spend our time reading your work.

The link he posted is not his work. It's "The Psychology or Religion" by Hood, Hill and Spilka. He did you a favor by posting that link and saving you 60 bucks. The least you could do is take out some time and familiarize yourself with some excerpts of that material.

It's unfortunate that you wish to settle for a wikipedia-esque two paragraph summary.

[Jaecp]

Arguments by link are not approved of here,

We are here to discuss stuff, not trade links in lieu of conversation. When using a link, there is a responsibility of the poster to do more than go "hey, read this"

[Metacrock]

Or, as I have said before, who are you that we should give credence to your ideas of what does and does not disprove 'garbage'?

I didn't ask you to give credence to my ideas.


I ASKED YOU TO GIVE CREDENCE TO PUBLISHED ACADEMIC SCHOLARLY WORK BASED UPON VALID SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, 200 OF THEM AND PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS!

I asked you to read an article by the top researcher in the world in psychology of religion in the field of religious experience.

Why should we spend our time reading your work.

I am not Ralph Hood. If I summarized the M scale that would be my work. I was linking you to an article written by the major researcher in the field, who I am not. I am not Ralph Hood. Hood is the major researcher he wrote the article.

Again who are you?

Bob Dylan? Booby Guppy? Alred E. Newman?

I don't mean to be facetious, but first gain the respect of the researchers in the field you are in (philosophy I suppose) with your arguments, contribute to the discussion amongst the professionals, and then comeback and try a sales pitch. Otherwise, humbly explain your opinions. We are all here to listen to each other's opinions and to contribute our own. So again, could you summarize your opinion or would you rather argue by link?

that is perposterious. that is the most foolish thing to say. what kind of reading comprehension do you have?

you want to pretend like I have to be worthy for you read a link to a text book by a major scholar, and article I didn't write.But if I actually ask you to read the summary I write myself then I'm somehow being humble?

wow! are you confussed! you are not on a par with Ralph Hood.

here's my question. who the hell aer you! do you have a Ph.D. no i doubt that. youi are a major researcher? no I don't thinks o. do you know anythig> hardly.

you act like you are some kind of judge and have to come up to your measure. I'll tell you who I am. I am a Ph.D candidate in the history of ideas at a major University in the Southwest. No five in the country in history of ideas programs. I have Masters degree in theology from one of the top liberal seminaries and I am damn brilliant and I know my stuff.


the the heck are you? what makes you better than the top researcher in the world in the field of psychology of religion (the guy who wrote the article I linked to?)

how dare you assume you can judge me!

You do not earn my respect, you fail to get it.

No soup for you!

[Metacrock]

Arguments by link are not approved of here,

We are here to discuss stuff, not trade links in lieu of conversation. When using a link, there is a responsibility of the poster to do more than go "hey, read this"

I wasn't making an argument sweetie poo. I was answering a question honey pie. The guy asked me to explain about the M scale so I was showing him the article by its author.

why don't you know nothings ever read the context and understand the issues you are jumping into before you open your cake hole?

that might help you seem less ditzy

[little_monkey]

I didn't ask you to give credence to my ideas.


I ASKED YOU TO GIVE CREDENCE TO PUBLISHED ACADEMIC SCHOLARLY WORK BASED UPON VALID SCIENTIFIC STUDIES, 200 OF THEM AND PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS!

I asked you to read an article by the top researcher in the world in psychology of religion in the field of religious experience.

This is what's written on your link, P. 291 bottom

According to Thorner(1966), what mystics claim is that the perceptual referent in religious experience is a unity within the world. This unity is not linked to any one perceptual object; instead, all objects are unified into a perception of totality or oneness. However, the mystical experience of a unity within the world emphasized by Thorner is only one form of mysticism. Following Stace (1960), we refer to this as "extrovertive mysticism". We contrast extrovertive mysticism with another form of mysticism, "introvertive mysticism". This is a unity devoid of perceptual objects; it is literally an experience of "no-thing-ness". Perceptual objects disappear, and a pure consciousness devoid of content is reported.

If you have to study this garbage, my condolences.

[Jon_Day]

I wasn't making an argument sweetie poo. I was answering a question honey pie. The guy asked me to explain about the M scale so I was showing him the article by its author.

why don't you know nothings ever read the context and understand the issues you are jumping into before you open your cake hole?

that might help you seem less ditzy

To be frank (and only cause I'm sick of your attitude) but no one here needs to be worried about appearing ditsy, except for you. You come off like a complete idiot in every post you type. Sorry to be rude, but it's true...and although others may not say it that exact way (atheist and theist alike)...I know for a fact they're thinking it.

Learn how to type and form cohesive thoughts...and then, maybe then you can start insulting others' intelligence. Otherwise, you just sound like some kind of buffoon.

Oh I'm sure this is just cause I'm a bad ol' atheist and all atheists are dumb. It doesn't actually have to do with the fact that you can't even come up with a single post that sounds like anything other than gobbledygook.

[Metacrock]

To be frank (and only cause I'm sick of your attitude) but no one here needs to be worried about appearing ditsy, except for you. You come off like a complete idiot in every post you type. Sorry to be rude, but it's true...and although others may not say it that exact way (atheist and theist alike)...I know for a fact they're thinking it.

Learn how to type and form cohesive thoughts...and then, maybe then you can start insulting others' intelligence. Otherwise, you just sound like some kind of buffoon.

Oh I'm sure this is just cause I'm a bad ol' atheist and all atheists are dumb. It doesn't actually have to do with the fact that you can't even come up with a single post that sounds like anything other than gobbledygook.

you are sick of my attitude. the whole reason that I started acting this way is because your attitude sux. Fromt he frist post I saw by you were acting like the big cheese. you are so supiror Chrsitain and just dirt under your feet.

hell man look at your sceen name! talk about ego begging to be accepted. "please admire me" it screams. you need to mock and ridicule to feel important and valid as a person don't you?

Like most bullies when someone stands up to you you can't handle it.

It bothered so deeply that I don't accept being a dog turd and I think I have bit o brains taht just hedges your world does' t it? But you are not willing read or study. you refuse to learn anything of theology but ehn you want to pontificate like you know ti all you the big expert.

I find most things you say are incredible ignorant. you don't listen you don't get what I say most of the time. Shall I go through your post and mark things you say that sound incredibly arrogant?

[Metacrock]

This is what's written on your link, P. 291 bottom

According to Thorner(1966), what mystics claim is that the perceptual referent in religious experience is a unity within the world. This unity is not linked to any one perceptual object; instead, all objects are unified into a perception of totality or oneness. However, the mystical experience of a unity within the world emphasized by Thorner is only one form of mysticism. Following Stace (1960), we refer to this as "extrovertive mysticism". We contrast extrovertive mysticism with another form of mysticism, "introvertive mysticism". This is a unity devoid of perceptual objects; it is literally an experience of "no-thing-ness". Perceptual objects disappear, and a pure consciousness devoid of content is reported.

1966, it's out of date. That's before any of the modern scientific methodologies were developed for the good studies were done.

what that says is basically right two major types of experience, of of them is unity wiping out differentiation the other is sort of keyed into nature.

If you have to study this garbage, my condolences.

why is it garbage mr know all? this is what makes me angry. you know nothing about it. but you decide you like it why?

because you haven't had that experience? you are narrow minded and intolerant. you hate religious people you hate God (big mean God wont let me sin) all of hte above?


does it make you angry because you can't feel superior when people know about and you don't?

[Jon_Day]

you are sick of my attitude. the whole reason that I started acting this way is because your attitude sux. Fromt he frist post I saw by you were acting like the big cheese. you are so supiror Chrsitain and just dirt under your feet.

hell man look at your sceen name! talk about ego begging to be accepted. "please admire me" it screams. you need to mock and ridicule to feel important and valid as a person don't you?

Like most bullies when someone stands up to you you can't handle it.

It bothered so deeply that I don't accept being a dog turd and I think I have bit o brains taht just hedges your world does' t it? But you are not willing read or study. you refuse to learn anything of theology but ehn you want to pontificate like you know ti all you the big expert.

I find most things you say are incredible ignorant. you don't listen you don't get what I say most of the time. Shall I go through your post and mark things you say that sound incredibly arrogant?

Look man, when you don't even bother to try to make your sentences make some sort of sense...I don't see how you expect me to know what you're talking about. Just look at that first one...I don't even know what you're referring to. Are you saying I'm a Christian, and that I'm superior? Or are you saying that I think I'm superior to Christians? Both are wrong.

My screen name is my name. I've always used it. I don't care about anonymity. I hardly see where that has anything to do with ego or wanting to be accepted. Am I to believe that people will accept me more because my name is Jonathan? (that's Hebrew for God's gift btw)

I'm hardly a bully. You've hardly stood up to me, as I've not attacked you. If anything...you may want to consider that it's the other way around...you, being the bully...toward anyone you perceive to be a threat to your way of thinking.

Arrogance is something I'm sure you know plenty about. If you'd like, I will go through your posts and you can go through mine, and we can have a poll to see who is the most arrogant. Then at least we can be arrogant about being arrogant...am I right?

[little_monkey]

you are narrow minded and intolerant.

So one post and you know me that well. So look who is narrow minded and intolerant.

you hate religious people you hate God (big mean God wont let me sin) all of hte above??

It's hard to hate an idea that is about a fictional character.

does it make you angry because you can't feel superior when people know about and you don't?

What you know is garbage. It's hard not to feel superior to that.

[Metacrock]

So one post and you know me that well. So look who is narrow minded and intolerant.



It's hard to hate an idea that is about a fictional character.




What you know is garbage. It's hard not to feel superior to that.

you have proved me right so far. When you start dealing with the issues rather than personalities and stop pre judging everything I say then we can talk.

[Metacrock]

Look man, when you don't even bother to try to make your sentences make some sort of sense...I don't see how you expect me to know what you're talking about. Just look at that first one...I don't even know what you're referring to. Are you saying I'm a Christian, and that I'm superior? Or are you saying that I think I'm superior to Christians? Both are wrong.

My screen name is my name. I've always used it. I don't care about anonymity. I hardly see where that has anything to do with ego or wanting to be accepted. Am I to believe that people will accept me more because my name is Jonathan? (that's Hebrew for God's gift btw)

I'm hardly a bully. You've hardly stood up to me, as I've not attacked you. If anything...you may want to consider that it's the other way around...you, being the bully...toward anyone you perceive to be a threat to your way of thinking.

Arrogance is something I'm sure you know plenty about. If you'd like, I will go through your posts and you can go through mine, and we can have a poll to see who is the most arrogant. Then at least we can be arrogant about being arrogant...am I right?

Yes this is embarrassing. I had you confused with someone else.I thought you had said some things and I look back and see someone else did. I apologize. I actually like you. I didn't mean those about you.

[Jon_Day]

Yes this is embarrassing. I had you confused with someone else.I thought you had said some things and I look back and see someone else did. I apologize. I actually like you. I didn't mean those about you.

Fair enough. Apology accepted.

[Metacrock]

Fair enough. Apology accepted.

forget it. Apology off. middle finger says "I'm no 1" you are no 2.