Sunday, June 17, 2018

Hate Mail - It Doesn't Matter How Simple The Questions Are If You Can't Answer Them The Whole Cathedral of Atheist Faith Falls

You don't seem to understand how proving something works.  Since you're the one demanding proof, that would seem to be rather a problem for your position.  Any failure to answer questions like the ones I posed is a failure for the theory of "brain-only" and unless they can answer those, it is a definitive failure and an excellent reason to disbelieve the claims no matter what science credentials those pushing the atheist-faith holding hold.

An emotional attachment to atheism and a hatred and hostility to God and religion is what I have concluded is the real issue, the various intellectual supports that they come up with, up to and including multiverse conjecture and the power atheist cosmologists, physicists, etc. give themselves and, in the hardest cases such as pretty much the inventor of the modern version of that,  Hughes Everett, everyone to create universes out of nothing and gas on academically and popularly about their imagined universes even more elaborately than some Hindus and Buddhists who did kind of the same thing did.  Only they pretend it's science that they're doing since their descriptions are in equations instead of prose.

And, in the mean time, while those scientists are creating their mind-forged universes, their colleagues in inserting atheist ideology into the biological sciences have the task of reducing minds into nothing but chemical reactions and the electrical activity that come with those, the basis of randomly present conditions within brains without any possibility of those chemical reactions having any transcendent properties such as truth.

That all of the science they pretend they're doing and insisting that everyone believe is entirely dependent on the reality of that last thing, the transcendent property of truth, they've cut the legs out from under everything they've been doing.  The modern ideology of atheist-materialist-scientism is a very fancy delusion,  sold by and held through the hegemony that ideologically motivated atheists have in science and other academic fields but it is as decadent in its choice of not admitting to what they're doing and why they're doing it.  If one in a hundred-thousand or more of the people who believe it believe in it on any basis more sound than that "this I know because scientists tell me so," I'd need to see proof of that. That they have to knock out the underpinnings of the science they're pretending to do while they do it is secondary to their real motivation, an ideological attack on religion and God.

If you can't get past those questions I first posed in 2015 about how the brain knows how to make the structure to be an accurate or true idea about any aspect of external reality before the idea to cause it to begin to make the structure, how to make the right structure to be an accurate or true idea, how to know if it's made the right and not the wrong structure (any such wrong structure then being the ONLY representation of the idea physically present in the brain to inform any "truth testing" of the idea) and to judge if it has done the right thing, THE ENTIRE THEORY OF IDEAS BEING STRUCTURES THE BRAIN BUILDS FAILS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T PASS THE TEST OF EMPIRICISM, THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH SCIENCE WAS BUILT.  Any proposed solution to that must match the human experience of thinking new ideas that the person having them never held before, at the speed in which we have those ideas. 

Science also has the limit that what it holds must meet the test of logical soundness, anything, even anything that is real but which can't pass the test of logical soundness can't be held to be capable of being treated with science.  That's also something that atheist scientists want to junk, both in stuff like multiverse cosmology and in those pseudo-sciences that pretend to treat the mind, the minds of animals, the combination of those in societies and communities and cultures.  Much if not most of that pretense has been motivated by atheists wanting to extend science beyond where it can go and still be science.  If you want a good example of that, you can look at the history of psychology which is little but building imaginary structures only to have them fall down into little if not nothing.  Yet university faculties have not called bull-shit to the pretense that what they do is science.   Changing the name of that effort into neuro-science or cognitive-science doesn't really change the fact that their methods are not scientific, their peer review is self-interested and putridly dishonest and their history is what should be a huge scandal.   I don't think it's any wonder that Jordan Peterson is from the world of big-time university psychology, his net-based angry, white-boy cult is just another, if perhaps the biggest, psychotheraputic cult in a continual history of those arising from people duped by that pseudo-science.  That's as true of those who claim to be religious* as those who are atheists.

None of which gets past those problems in those questions listed above.  If you can't get past those, you fail and so does the alleged science of "brain only".

* Peterson is a huckster.   Any pretense of religiosity he has is part of his sales pitch, I see no religious content in his cult.  His cult is based on any number of widely popular beliefs, such as the ubiquitous faith in natural selection and neo-eugenics, what most people call "evolutionary psychology".



    As opposed to, say, the Virgin Birth or the assumption of Mary into heaven physically.

  2. No one who believes in those things would claim that they were believed empirically, they are a result of faith, just like the "brain-only" faith of atheists and the multiverse faith holding of atheists and materialism and scientism, etc. Religious people admit that their beliefs are beliefs, atheists pretend their beliefs are knowledge.

    Clearly you either didn't read the definition I posted here the other day or you did and didn't understand it because, clearly, you have no idea what empiricism or empirical knowledge are. That could be because you've never mastered even the lowest standard of rigor that you need to pass those tests. You believe what you do on the basis of fashion and what you figure is groovy with the groovy people. What I'd call the stupid-pretentious set. Duncans' for example.

  3. "atheists pretend their beliefs are knowledge."

    Well, the organized ones you're always gassing about, the ones with the secret handshakes, possibly. Every other sane person either thinks the god stuff is bullshit or just doesn't give a rat's ass either way.

    1. Yeah, you buddy General Zod is so together. Chicago Dyke, the rest of the tots at Duncan's daycare for drooling duffers. With the smallest of exceptions, the people who go there to hang out with you said everything they ever had to say and will ever have to say in about the spring of 2005. Pretty much everything that has happened there since then would be superfluous except it's too low energy for anything super. It's more like lotus land than anything else.

      I notice you don't show any evidence of knowing what empircism is, even with my prompting. I'm not surprised, you are an idiot. I think I'll go Simps free for a while. I can't say I feel cheap batting away your slow pitches from your slow mind but it's so predictable that it's pretty boring.

      Is it something about atheists down there that they never, ever say anything that hasn't been said before by equally stupid people?

  4. BTW, I wasn't surprised that you were too chickenshit and dishonest to reply to my comments about 19th century Gothic novels.

    1. I said I didn't care about gothic novels, or short stories or most of the poetry or other stuff in that genre. I doubt you ever read those things, I'll bet if I looked they were made into movies "based on" them and that's how you heard of them. I doubt you read all that much more than Trump does.

      Yeah, I'm going Simps free for a while. It's not that I'll miss you if you go away, I'm sure I wouldn't. Let's put it to the test. It's part of the practice of empiricism, testing with careful experimentation. My prediction is that you couldn't go a month without mentioning me or what I write. Let's see if I'm right about that. Maybe if you mention me I'll run the experiment for another month, a sort of replication to check my results.