Metacrock v.s Michael Hill: God Corrolate argument

Metacrock vs All comers; other can also reserve. this is for 1x1 debate, please do not respond if you are not specifically demarcated as part of the debate.

Moderator: Metacrock

Michael Hill
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: Metacrock v.s Michael Hill: God Corrolate argument

Post by Michael Hill » 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.

Michael Hill
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: Metacrock v.s Michael Hill: God Corrolate argument

Post by Michael Hill » Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:23 am

Peer review is what can be duplicated by anyone. Your people are asking people how they feel so how can that be repeated when people feel different at different times?

As I said, your qualifications would be nothing this side of the Atlantic.

The link copied OK and I used it in my original post to open up the site but your copy of the link does not work. Again:

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-a ... /#comments

that is

http:// profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/#comments

without any gaps in case it ends up wrong somehow.

Show me how I don't know science there or anywhere else and how much you know, Einstein.

Of course sociologists would claim on Wikipedia, their editing, that it is a science but it is proved to be untrustworthy, inaccurate and not as predictive as claimed and I think most scientists would see it as an insult for it to be included as a science.

An American dictionary? Americans are so gullible with many being illiterate and creationists, that I am not surprised they would call it a science. How about through fair hygiene specialist for street cleaner?

What you are claiming is miracles as in mumbo-jumbo from a mythical god. Show me any evidence your sky fairy exists which is not hearsay or lies.

What would you know about atheists, apart from warnings from your local church?

Michael Hill
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: Metacrock v.s Michael Hill: God Corrolate argument

Post by Michael Hill » Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:30 am

The wife of a minister? So she won't say anything then.

I have sought the truth and there is none there. You claim the only way to find god is use your imagination and want him to exist. That works on Santa too.

The holy books are all mythology which is why all religions are called faiths as in without evidence. They are not supported by history, contemporary accounts, science or anything else. The books of the bible were written tens, hundreds, even thousands of years after the events portrayed in them so at best are hearsay accounts and at worst, outright lies.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock v.s Michael Hill: God Corrolate argument

Post by Metacrock » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:18 am

Michael Hill wrote: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.


you don't even know what peer review is. theists-- the kind you let govern your thinking-- are ignorant, illogical, unlearned un read and full of hate. They hate themselves thus need to prove they are superior but they have no clue.
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.
again I already disproved this and you didn't read you are just repeating the same hogwash.

1. you can't equate chemicals with mystical experience. the stuff I quoted listed several reasons and your trying ti pretend they weren't there but the are, The major reason being that there is no research following drugies to fund if their lives are made dramatically better. that is the case with religious experience and you have never answered that.

2. God made us with brain chemistry as the major conduit of personal awareness, thus to be aware of God there has to be a chemical connection. That connection is not causal and no science can prove that it is. you have not answered hat said it before. you can't answer now.
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.
Hood and Spilka site studies showing that children are not into doctrine. Just because they have some religious concepts doesn't means they know to expect mystical experience,

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.
you didn't read most of the stuff I''ve said have you? I've pointed out in every speech including the first one that mystical experience is a particular kind od experience. Hudini was not a mystic, grow up and face the issues honestly! that does not apply you have never answered the definition.



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."
that's one poll. as everyone knows the Republican polls were wrong. Romney thought he won because his polster's just used ground lines for surveys and Oboma use social media. His polls showed he would win. You are a Brit so you don't remember that.

I don't agree with you so you talk crap about me. What happened to the "be nice" demand?
do you really not get that telling people their major thing is stupid is offensive? I've been tolerating your insults the whole time,.
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.
1. when will you get it through your head that your word is not proof you don't prove by stating your opinion. I don't read creationist literature so I don't know they have thyo9we and you did not document that.

2. the journals these studies are in are respected secular academic journals, creationists ha e no respected journals.

3. you are making a fallacious argument here; my studies have nothing to do with creationism so you no business trying to associate them; and guilt by association is a fallacy.



2. I don't believe your superstitious nonsense so I am living in denial?
social sciences! academic studies by psychiatrists and psychologists and published in. there is no basis for discussion. you are too ignorant,

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.
sorry you do not know what science is. you think its anti religious ideas. science is systematic hypothesis testing toward understanding the physical workings of the world. I quoted two professors and a dictionary saying sociology is science. In America we don't give Ph.D.'s in slack subjects. There are Ph.D/s and secular universities give them so it's official. No wonder you lIMIES lost your empire,/ and to US! :mrgreen:


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.
200 studies over 50 years. by different people. Maslow was an atheist, Wuthnow is an atheist, they are secular studies by people shrinks, what would be the motive? they could get published as well by saying mystical experience sux. How do they get third world peasants who could not possibly know Stace's theory to go along?

they have to answer the right way 32 times to validate Stace, they did this in six countries, lying their way to validating Stace would be statistically impossible.




I did not say all people would have a religious experience but very religious people like you would.
again, bigotry is not proof. you ha e no study, you are asserting your hatred, asserting your ignorance doesn't prove anything,
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.
you have not quoted one, the only one who ever said that was discredited for it; a dead sea scroll guy they stil call him "mushroom man." no proof of your assertion and it's wrong, you don't know anything about scholars of any kind,
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.
wow you/ve been this ignorant for over 60 years? still in high school?
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.
you don't know what science is., you don't even know what peer review is. I studied philosophy of science at Ph.D. level and you don't know that it's a subject.


"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 know what peer review is do you?"

Names? The lies some people tell.
again? in addition to everything else you don't understand the names I've said? There arev 200 studies of some of them include Hood, Maslow, Wuthnow, Greely, Nobel, a lot more are named on the first page. Go back and read the first page.

I've documented everything I've said. it just doesn't make it it a lie merely because you are too ignorant to understand it.

\I challenged you to put your money where your mouth is you could not do it,



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.
Big bang did happen why would you think it didn't?
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.
you just gotyour ass kicked in spades, where are all the big facgts you spoke of on my blog? you don't have a thing other than your idgnorance,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts: 10046
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: Metacrock v.s Michael Hill: God Corrolate argument

Post by Metacrock » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:54 am

I originally said two rebuttals. We just did the third rebuttal. so it's over,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply