Feed on Posts or Comments 01 August 2014

Christianity Thomas on 18 May 2012 12:42 am

How do you ask Jesus into your life?

The video is entitled “ATHEIST PROFESSOR IN HELL! Best testimony EVER!” featuring Howard Storm, former atheist.

At the beginning he says, “God loves you. We are not going to hold it against you that you are ignorant. You don’t know what you don’t know… There is a higher power, and that’s what we are here to talk about tonight.”

After an operation he descends into hell and experiences terrible things, which he describes in detail.

According to Storm, here is how you bring Jesus into your life:

Don’t believe me, don’t believe TBN, don’t believe the church. Go to the source. If you go to the source and say, “Jesus, I need you, I’ve never believed in you and I don’t know if you are real, but Jesus, I need to know if you are real. Will you come into my life?” If you do that and if you mean it from your heart and if you sit there and wait and don’t get all frustrated and impatient and stuff like that. Just say, “Jesus, Jesus, please come into my life. I’ve been a rotten person. I don’t know why you would touch a piece of filth like me. But please Jesus come into my life.” He will come.

He says, “It may just be as John Wesley said, a strange warming of the heart. Where you just know that you know that you know that you know.”

This page contains the following quote:

Rev. Howard Storm was an atheist who was rescued from hell by Jesus. While in hell, Storm was subjected to extreme torment and torture by hideously dark souls. The following passage describes his conversion from atheism while in hell:

Exactly what happened was …and I’m not going to try and explain this. From inside of me I felt a voice, my voice, say: “Pray to God.”

My mind responded to that: “I don’t pray. I don’t know how to pray.”

This is a guy lying on the ground in the darkness surrounded by what appeared to be dozens if not hundreds and hundreds of vicious creatures who had just torn him up. The situation seemed utterly hopeless, and I seemed beyond any possible help whether I believed in God or not. The voice again told me to pray to God. It was a dilemma since I didn’t know how. The voice told me a third time to pray to God.

I started saying things like: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want …God bless America ..” and anything else that seemed to have a religious connotation.

And these people went into a frenzy, as if I had thrown boiling oil all over them. They began yelling and screaming at me, telling me to quit, that there was no God, and no one could hear me. While they screamed and yelled obscenities, they also began backing away from me as if I were poison. As they were retreating, they became more rabid, cursing and screaming that what I was saying was worthless and that I was a coward.

I screamed back at them: “Our Father who art in heaven,” and similar ideas.

This continued for some time until, suddenly, I was aware that they had left. It was dark, and I was alone yelling things that sounded churchy. It was pleasing to me that these churchy sayings had such an effect on those awful beings.

Howard Storm’s acknowledgement of a Higher Power led to his rescue from hell. This suggests that it is the way to leave hell.

114 Responses to “How do you ask Jesus into your life?”

  1. on 18 May 2012 at 12:59 pm 1.Anonymous said …

    At 7:10 he says “people choose hell”. “Millions of people are going to hell because they refuse to love god.”

    Then he says, “I’ve got to give up…” with his whole list. “I’ve got to give up fame” is one of them. He actually GOES TO HELL, so he says, and he knows that he must give up fame, yet here is is on TV.

    What is the name for that level of hypocrisy?

  2. on 18 May 2012 at 1:06 pm 2.A said …

    How to say this while smiling with amusement. Anonymouse, I was on TV many times. I’m not famous.

    Now say Doh! Anonymouse.:)

    Kool story.

  3. on 18 May 2012 at 3:26 pm 3.Anonymous said …

    2.A:

    If you were on TV “many times” and are not famous, then you squandered the opportunity (or you were terrible). Many people become famous from a single TV appearance.

    Rational people would say that being on TV is necessary for fame but not sufficient. Howard Storm is taking the necessary steps to become famous. He does that despite his claim of visiting hell and learning that he needs to give up fame. That is hypocrisy.

  4. on 18 May 2012 at 4:00 pm 4.Prime said …

    Don’t forget, Anonymous, that Howard Storm has published a book (that he presumably wants to sell) based upon his experience “in hell.” That would also be a form of fame.

  5. on 18 May 2012 at 7:44 pm 5.A said …

    “Many people become famous from a single TV appearance.”

    Sure Anonymouse and most do not. TBN as a guest is probably not the outlet to become famous. Therefore if you think he is on a path of necessary steps with TBN, you are not very bright.

    Publishing a book also brings fame? Then I am famous yet I still remain in virtual anonymity just as I like.

    I have never heard of the man so you assumption is just ignorant.

    Just say Doh! and be done.

  6. on 18 May 2012 at 8:08 pm 6.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Publishing a book also brings fame? Then I am famous yet I still remain in virtual anonymity just as I like.

    I have never heard of the man so you assumption is just ignorant.”

    One thing that you are famous for, at least on this blog, is your ability to form a non-sequitur.

  7. on 18 May 2012 at 8:21 pm 7.Prime said …

    Asstrophysicist: have you ever heard of Richard Dawkins? John Steinbeck? Mary Shelley? J. K. Rowling? “Moses”? The Evangelist “Luke”?

    Guess what: famous because of books they published.

    Just because no one wants to read your crappy book doesn’t mean that people can’t get famous by publishing books.

    Now we might consider another case: Newt Gingrich. He wrote a bunch of crappy books too. He is also already famous. Then he ran a sham of a presidential campaign last year and this essentially as a book promotional tour so that he could make more money off his books.

    Now, how is that relevant? Howard Storm writes a book. Then Howard Storm goes on TBN and talks about his experience, chronicled in his book. That would presumably drive up book sales among the primary demographic deluded enough to get really excited about his weirdo publication. That’s called “building fame.” It’s simultaneously known as “selling books,” which is known to be effective for “making money” (your crappy book perhaps not).

    How is that relevant? He expressly says that’s not his purpose, making him a liar and a hypocrite, as Anonymous claimed.

  8. on 18 May 2012 at 8:23 pm 8.alex said …

    disturbing. how does he differentiate when Jesus tells him to kill abortion doctors, marry multiple wifes or underage girls? burn the quran to antagonize the muslims, etc, etc.???,,,, (sigh!)

  9. on 18 May 2012 at 9:23 pm 9.Ben said …

    Mary Balogh
    Paul Bailey
    Tom Reamy

    They have something in common. They are all authors and hardly famous. Anony and Prime are both liars

    Atheists must lie in order to maintain their tenuous worldview. To paint a man as a liar and hypocrite all because he shares an experience is just slimy.

  10. on 18 May 2012 at 9:34 pm 10.Prime said …

    9.Ben said …

    “Mary Balogh
    Paul Bailey
    Tom Reamy

    They have something in common.”

    They are all authors and are famous enough for Ben to know who they are.

  11. on 18 May 2012 at 9:36 pm 11.Prime said …

    9.Ben said …

    “To paint a man as a liar and hypocrite all because he shares an experience is just slimy.”

    To paint a man as slimy for something he’s not doing is slimy. The man is a liar and a hypocrite for openly saying that people should renounce fame while he engages in a practice that increases fame. The man is a liar and a hypocrite for openly espousing a theology that tells him to sell all of his worldly possessions and forgo wealth while using the group of people who pretend to believe that as his target market to sell books, or at the least, if this man is vaguely sincere, by going on a television station (TBN) that is world-famous for making money off religious delusion.

  12. on 18 May 2012 at 10:03 pm 12.Lou(DFW) said …

    9.Ben said …

    “Atheists must lie in order to maintain their tenuous worldview.”

    And Ben must lie about atheists in order to make a point. All atheists don’t have a particular “wordlview.”

  13. on 18 May 2012 at 10:09 pm 13.Lou(DFW) said …

    9.Ben said …

    “To paint a man as a liar and hypocrite all because he shares an experience is just slimy.”

    And Ben must lie about Prime to make a point. Prime never wrote nor implied that Storm is “liar and hypocrite” because he (Storm) shared an experience.

  14. on 19 May 2012 at 4:09 am 14.Chris said …

    Anon -

    “At 7:10 he says “people choose hell”. “Millions of people are going to hell because they refuse to love god.”

    I don’t think you are too far off point here, but not in the way he or you believe.

    Prodigal Son Parable, read it and it fits quite nicely with the ‘choose hell’.

    If you don’t see the similarity, let me know, I will be happy to show you how people “choose hell.”

  15. on 19 May 2012 at 4:28 am 15.Slapnuts McGee said …

    Ok toolshed, show me how people ‘choose’ hell. And, while you’re at it, show me that hell even exists, or that your god exists for that matter.

  16. on 19 May 2012 at 4:30 am 16.Chris said …

    My two favorite names!!!

    Okay, for God and Hell, please refer to the discussion that Prime and I are having as we are going through my list of evidence for God.

    Second, if you look at my post, I said to read the Prodigal Son parable…did you? That will help with how people choose hell.

  17. on 19 May 2012 at 1:46 pm 17.Lou(DFW) said …

    15.Slapnuts McGee said …

    “Ok toolshed, show me how people ‘choose’ hell. And, while you’re at it, show me that hell even exists, or that your god exists for that matter.”

    Of course people never choose hell. The idea that they do is part of the xtian delusion.

  18. on 19 May 2012 at 2:54 pm 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.Chris said …

    “That will help with how people choose hell.”

    Here’s an analogy as to how people would choose hell – if hell actually existed, for which you didn’t provide any evidence.

    My best friend and I were walking down the street when we were approached by a gunman who threatened to kill us if we didn’t give him our wallets. My friend refused, and he was shot dead and his wallet taken. After that I handed my wallet it the gunman.

    Would you conclude that I chose to give my wallet to an unknown person on the street?

  19. on 19 May 2012 at 3:25 pm 19.Chris said …

    Lou -

    did you read the prodigal son parable? Doesn’t seem so.

    As you have admitted you don’t read much of what i post, tho if you did, you wouldn’t look so silly…

    Prodigal Son Parable…what does it say?

  20. on 19 May 2012 at 3:32 pm 20.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Here’s an analogy as to how people would choose hell – if hell actually existed, for which you didn’t provide any evidence.”

    That’s YOUR analogy…

    So we should take YOUR analogy over the Gospel because?????

  21. on 19 May 2012 at 3:55 pm 21.Lou(DFW) said …

    20.Chris said …

    Lou -

    “Here’s an analogy as to how people would choose hell – if hell actually existed, for which you didn’t provide any evidence.”

    “That’s YOUR analogy…

    So we should take YOUR analogy over the Gospel because?????”

    Chris, you have the uncanny ability to leap from conclusion to conclusion without consideration of what was actually written.

    The Gospel is an alleged account of Jesus’ life. My analogy is an illustration of the fallacy of choosing hell. One has nothing to do with the other.

    If you want to pursue another idiotic, juvenile belief, to wit, choosing hell, then you must first establish that hell exists. You have not done so.

  22. on 19 May 2012 at 5:42 pm 22.Ben said …

    “They are all authors and are famous enough for Ben to know who they are.”

    Actually no, I looked up some obscure authors. I have no clue who they are. You didn’t know who they were either.

    Prime, they are authors and not famous. You theory is now debunked.

    But don’t let that stop you from smearing people you don’t agree with.

  23. on 19 May 2012 at 6:11 pm 23.Layla said …

    God is real. I don’t expect people will take my word for it, but I know without a doubt it is true. It makes me feel sorrow in my heart for each one of you who choose to exist without Him. I see so many people focus so intently on their disbelief that they miss seeing the miracles around them everyday. I hear ,”If God is real, why are children starving to death…” & truthfully they starve because WE let them. We COULD feed them if everyone helped. If its proof you need…there’s literally multi MILLIONS of people who have reported similar near death experiences worldwide….how come? That’s the question I asked myself before I believed in God. In my search for the answer …I found Him. He gave me joy & peace, love & hope. If you ever get tired of that emptiness inside…look for God again & you will find Him.

  24. on 19 May 2012 at 6:32 pm 24.Prime said …

    22.Ben said …

    “Actually no, I looked up some obscure authors. I have no clue who they are. You didn’t know who they were either.”

    And thus famous enough to be found in such a search. Honestly.

  25. on 19 May 2012 at 8:01 pm 25.A said …

    Yeah Ben, I can google my name and find me. All 7 billion people on the planet are famous. Come on.

  26. on 19 May 2012 at 10:29 pm 26.Prime said …

    Here’s the scenario we face here.

    Storm writes a book. Presumably he wants to sell this book. That requires promoting his book. In some way, the people at TBN become aware of his book (probably through some kind of promotion, indicating that he had achieved some level of fame by it–Anne Rice also noticed it and gave it some commentary). What way is it that these people noticed his book? Fame. All this increases his fame. Then he goes on TV on TBN and talks about his experience. He also says to shun fame, which he *is not doing*. If he was shunning fame, he wouldn’t have wanted to be on television. He’s named as “best known of contemporary distressing NDE accounts” (sounds like fame that he isn’t shying away from by coming on TBN and rambling about it). Maybe TBN isn’t enough: “Storm has told his story to numerous audiences and appeared on NBC’s Today Show,[12] The Oprah Winfrey Show,[13][14] 48 Hours,[13] Discovery Channel[13] and Coast to Coast AM.[14]” If that’s not enough, he has a documentary about himself out, titled the same as his book. If this man is saying “forgo fame,” then he’s a hypocrite, clear as day.

    But, let’s pretend that this guy isn’t a hypocrite FOR THAT. Who cares? He’s sitting there talking about things he cannot know. He cannot know that his experience was veridical, especially given the number of explanations for what could be going on in a NDE.

    He’s not leaving it at “I had this experience (that happened while I was unconscious and in an extreme medical condition putting all kinds of stresses on my nervous system), and it was (read: seemed) real to me.”

    Instead, he’s pushing it as, “I had this experience, and it was objectively real. You and I both are worthless sacks that don’t deserve anything, and if you don’t believe what I’m saying on a network that is a champion of the ‘prosperity gospel,’ then you are going to suffer for ever.” That’s either dishonest or stupid. Given the amount he likely makes off that book and all the follow-up attention he gets, I’m guessing at least some of both, particularly since the story he tells in the book seems pretty weak and very much like a “I want to sell books to people” setup (more on that later).

    That’s why it is utterly relevant that he was an art professor and not a scientist. The man is not looking at the question objectively and may not even have a clear understanding of the matter of studying reality in as objective a manner as is possible. Then he pushes a subjective experience as being veridical of all these magical forces. Oddly, when people have NDEs in the Islamic world, they see the Prophet and all kinds of imagery out of the Qur’an, but he can’t account for that and dismisses it all. The man isn’t qualified to talk about what he experienced objectively, and yet he parades it about like he is.

    As for other hypocrisies, I wonder what he does with the proceeds of his book sales. Donates them all to the poor, no doubt….

  27. on 19 May 2012 at 10:34 pm 27.Prime said …

    This review of Storm’s book (on Amazon, if you want to look it up), is particularly poignant in making him appear to be a liar on top of being a hypocrite.

    “I read this book in a few hours and was struck by several things.

    “Storm starts the book with the story of his medical emergency in Paris, France. I agree with another reviewer who is skeptical of his essential story, namely that while in France he could not get timely treatment for his medical emergency, and that he was wheeled from one building to another, outside, while trying to get a single surgeon on his case because all the others were on vacation that weekend! I find that very hard to believe!

    “He also spends some time telling us that he was an atheist before this incident. Or, at least his version of what it means to be atheist. He describes himself as being self-absorbed and not interested in the idea of a god because he wanted to make sure he got his & to hell with everyone else. He implies that anyone who does not believe in the existance of a god being is immoral. Even in this part of the book you feel like a setup is coming. This does not represent a simple belief that without proof of a god there is no reason to believe one exists. But, I digress. Then he goes into a description of being drawn away by unseen creatures into what turns out to be hell, and that in his distress he remembers something he learned as a child in church & called out to Jesus while mixing in stuff from God Bless America & the Psalms. Then the meat of his book really begins.

    “Storm mixes together all kinds of ideas. He contends that the suffering universe was created deliberately by god for the sole purpose of god being able to have all kinds of experiences through his creation. Storm also mixes evolution in with this as a vehicle to “make souls”. At one point Storm contradicts himself and says that god is self-sufficient and does not need anything. Really? The god he describes seems to need to experience a variety of things and is willing to create whatever it takes to make that happen. This god also says that even though religions are man-made, the basis behind them all lead to him, and “all we need is love”. The real kicker was the mixing in there of New Thought belief that humans have the power to control nature and are telepathic. His god says he created us with these abilities but we are not allowed to use that power because we are not ready. Storm says god showed him an earth in the future where humans heal each other of disease with the power of their minds, and plants grow because our thoughts make them grow. Can you say “the Secret”?

    “Ok, so he saw something different. So what? Well, throughout this book Storm takes these ideas and tries to hijack Christianity and make it seem that Christianity is in agreement with what he saw & heard. As a matter of fact, this book is preachy in the extreme and tries really hard to convince us that we need to come over to his version of christian thought because, after all, god told him this directly. Really?? It irritated me that, on one hand, he says religion is created by humans & the way we describe God in those religions is wrong, while at the same time he feels compelled to twist a religion and simultaneously push it. Jesus is the only way! Come on! His clumsy attempt to pretend that, in his mind, all religions lead to god is contradicted by the way he pushes his version of Christianity.

    “His account seems to have two big themes in common with all near death experiences I have read: all religions lead to the same god, and god does not judge us, we do it to ourselves. However, I have never heard of a near death experiencer that had one with the level of detail he reports. In other books I have read the spirit beings encountered tell them things, but the contact is usually pretty brief and people bring back impressions of what they thought they saw. Not so with Storm. God and the angels told him he will save the world!

    “I usually enjoy stories like these because they have a mysterious quality to them. Most experiencers of the near death phenoneon take this strange happening & try to figure out what it is & how to integrate it into their lives. Some are radically changed by this experience, and I respect that. What I do not respect is Storm’s attempt to seemingly recreate a religious tradition. It makes me wonder if he had an experience at all.

    “All in all, I do not recommend this book. Anyone who feels compelled to twist a religion to convince himself that his experience was real is to be pittied at the least, and reviled as a liar at worst.”

  28. on 20 May 2012 at 12:40 am 28.Lou(DFW) said …

    26.Prime said …

    “He’s sitting there talking about things he cannot know. He cannot know that his experience was veridical, especially given the number of explanations for what could be going on in a NDE.”

    Of course he can’t know any such things. NDEs are hokum. It’s a fictin he created for him to make money. There’s no more evidence for NDEs than there is for alien abduction. Every single one of us were not alive (dead) before we were born. Anybody here want to claim that they had any type of experience before they were born?

  29. on 20 May 2012 at 12:46 am 29.Lou said …

    “Every single one of us were not alive (dead) before we were born.”

    I was dead before I was born? I thought I had to be born before I could be dead. Where was my body fake Lou?

    Also if you lost an atheist due to an NDE then he is gone from your ranks. It was real for him and for multiple thousands of others. Get over it.

  30. on 20 May 2012 at 12:51 am 30.Prime said …

    “We” “lost” an “atheist,” you gained another disingenuous hack that will take you for a ride. Be sure to donate to his ministry and buy his book.

  31. on 20 May 2012 at 12:53 am 31.Prime said …

    And, more to point:
    ‘The video is entitled “ATHEIST PROFESSOR IN HELL! Best testimony EVER!”’ (original post)

    If this is the “best testimony EVER!” that’s pretty much all you need to know about the whole sham they call a religion.

  32. on 20 May 2012 at 1:01 am 32.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.Lou said …

    “I was dead before I was born? I thought I had to be born before I could be dead. Where was my body fake Lou?”

    Apparently I didn’t make clear the sarcasm I used to set-up my rhetorical question.

    “Also if you lost an atheist due to an NDE then he is gone from your ranks. It was real for him and for multiple thousands of others. Get over it.”

    Really? You are a mind reader now? Because you made an absolute statement of fact that his NDE “…was real for him…,” please explain to us how you know that or you can simply retract it. Which is it?

  33. on 20 May 2012 at 1:11 am 33.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.Lou said …

    “I was dead before I was born? I thought I had to be born before I could be dead. Where was my body fake Lou?”

    I’m curious about what you think – if there is life after death, then how is there death? Is a body required to be alive?

  34. on 20 May 2012 at 8:46 am 34.Severin said …

    14 Chris
    ““Millions of people are going to hell because they refuse to love god.””

    Will Muslims who love their god probably much more than Christians love theirs go to hell?
    If yes, why?

    Where did go hundreds of millions of souls from Americas and Australia who died before Jesus gave them the chance to know him by sending there hordes of Christian “god loving” conquistadors?

    Clumsy Jesus! Shame on him! How can I trust him and expect anything from a guy who pretends to be a god but forgets his “children” for more than 1500 years!

  35. on 20 May 2012 at 12:50 pm 35.alex said …

    people go to hell/heaven because of the understandable fear of death. xtian religions take advantage of this fact. throw in everybody’s life shortcomings, and viola!, you can create a paradise compliance checklist.

    include a get out of jail card in the form of redemption and BAM!, how can the average fellow resist? sound like an AD? for a limited time only! do it now before the promised END GAME!

    point out obvious, predictable events like global wars, the ascension of evil dictators, random human mutations and the average joe is convinced. finally, declare Prophesy about nonbelievers and at last, Hotel Hell/Heaven, aka TripleHHH, is open for business.

    ….sorry, nothing deep here, sunday morn humor? (here in texas anyways)

  36. on 20 May 2012 at 1:40 pm 36.Lou(DFW) said …

    23.Layla said …

    “I hear ,”If God is real, why are children starving to death…” & truthfully they starve because WE let them. We COULD feed them if everyone helped.”

    If that is true, then god is not required nor even helpful.

  37. on 20 May 2012 at 1:42 pm 37.Lou(DFW) said …

    15.Slapnuts McGee said …

    “Ok toolshed, show me how people ‘choose’ hell.”

    So far, we haven’t received any explanation. Why is that? Because that parable has nothing to do with choosing hell.

  38. on 20 May 2012 at 6:47 pm 38.Suh said …

    “Every single one of us were not alive (dead) before we were born.”

    One of the dumbest statements made here. DFW would be a great comedian.

  39. on 20 May 2012 at 6:52 pm 39.Suh said …

    “you made an absolute statement of fact that his NDE “…was real for him…,” please explain to us how you know that or you can simply retract it. Which is it?”

    DFW is your IQ around 40? Maybe you are just a kid. I know I can make the claim that Howard’s NDE is real to him because he is writing books and doing interviews telling us so.

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you can’t read.

  40. on 20 May 2012 at 7:07 pm 40.Prime said …

    39.Suh said …

    “DFW is your IQ around 40? Maybe you are just a kid. I know I can make the claim that Howard’s NDE is real to him because he is writing books and doing interviews telling us so.”

    Because I couldn’t totally make up a story that happened to me that’s just outside the bounds of normal and write a book about it that I want to sell a lot of copies of.

    Religion: Someone said it and it sounds like something I want to believe so it’s definitely absolutely true.

    That’s why religion is so dangerous. It works as a training ground for teaching people how to be fleeced. The funny part is that they even call themselves sheep, like it’s something to be proud of.

  41. on 20 May 2012 at 8:22 pm 41.alex said …

    “I know I can make the claim that Howard’s NDE is real to him…”

    once again, the default position is non-belief. you theists are so brainwashed, you just hang on anything that even remotely validates your delusion. anybody can claim anything.

    why doesn’t stormy go into a series of independent hypnotic tests or even a lie detector test? it wont’ happen because you idiots will say “you can’t test god”….

    or some other shit like, “even if stormy did, you atheists won’t still believe”, so he won’t. sheeyat!

  42. on 20 May 2012 at 8:22 pm 42.Lou(DFW) said …

    39.Suh said …

    “I know I can make the claim that Howard’s NDE is real to him because he is writing books and doing interviews telling us so.”

    38.Suh said …

    “One of the dumbest statements made here.”

    Enough said.

  43. on 20 May 2012 at 8:27 pm 43.Prime said …

    The really interesting bit here is that if you actually read about Storm’s book, you’ll see that it is not in line with mainstream Christian theology about hell, heaven, and many other things and has a distinct New-Age quality to it (mentioned also in the above quoted review). It’s a mish-mash that is either (a) entirely fabricated, (b) based on a real experience and embellished, probably heavily since it is out of alignment with almost all other NDE experiences in terms of detail and scope, or (c) based upon a real experience that is still a real experience of an NDE, which is well-established as invalid as far as making claims about religions goes because it is subjective and can be explained by various brain phenomena not unlike dreaming while under extreme bodily duress.

    This is interesting because Christians use it to validate a belief that doesn’t even match what Storm is talking about, which is a heavy-duty sign of desperation and confirmation bias.

  44. on 21 May 2012 at 12:32 am 44.Suh said …

    “The really interesting bit here is that if you actually read about Storm’s book, you’ll see that it is not in line with mainstream Christian theology”

    So what? Let us check you IQ Prime.

    Let us begin with Lou’s claim:

    “you made an absolute statement of fact that his NDE “…was real for him…,” please explain to us how you know that or you can simply retract it”

    Do you deny that Storm’s NDE was real to him?

    Read the statement closely, think about it. Your credibility is on the line.

  45. on 21 May 2012 at 1:08 am 45.Prime said …

    No, you idiot. I deny that you can know whether or not Storm’s NDE was real to him or not. You cannot know he isn’t just making it up, whatever you claim that you pretend to know.

  46. on 21 May 2012 at 1:09 am 46.Prime said …

    Your credibility was lost ages ago.

  47. on 21 May 2012 at 1:14 am 47.Anonymous said …

    Suh, when Peter Popoff claimed to be directly receiving messages from a god and stated that he was not using a radio (in reality, operated by his wife) do you insist that his claim (not using a radio) was real to him?

    Read the statement closely, think about it. Your credibility is on the line.

  48. on 21 May 2012 at 1:15 am 48.DPK said …

    Prime… arguing with Suh is like trying to teach a dog calculus. Funny concept, but fruitless.

  49. on 21 May 2012 at 1:27 am 49.Prime said …

    Indeed, DPK. Now let’s all go have a laugh about his little “checkmate, Prime” moment he had there a minute ago and how it was borne entirely from his inability to accurately read what Lou(DFW) wrote in the first place.

  50. on 21 May 2012 at 1:41 am 50.Anonymous said …

    The best laugh is when you appreciate that Prime was called out on a matter of credibility, and told to make a definitive statement by someone who; has absolutely no credibility themselves; has been called on being a sock puppet; has provided no evidence or proof for their claims; and whose regular contribution to this blog is to pop up, throw out a few sniping comments, drop some drivel about “Higher Truths”, then run away when they get spanked long and hard for their nonsense posts.

    Now, that’s funny.

  51. on 21 May 2012 at 1:49 am 51.Prime said …

    Suh comes in; Suh goes out; can’t explain that. Checkmate, atheists.

  52. on 21 May 2012 at 5:42 am 52.Lou(DFW) said …

    47.Anonymous said …

    “Read the statement closely, think about it. Your credibility is on the line.”

    No, Suh’s credibility was never on the line. He never had credibility.

  53. on 21 May 2012 at 5:54 am 53.Anonymous said …

    51.Prime said …

    “Suh comes in; Suh goes out; can’t explain that. Checkmate, atheists.:

    Do you actually expect pinhead to “get” that?

  54. on 21 May 2012 at 6:02 am 54.Anonymous said …

    48.DPK said …

    “Prime… arguing with Suh is like trying to teach a dog calculus. Funny concept, but fruitless.”

    But, even my dog understands that writing a book about something doesn’t legitimize it as “real to him.”

  55. on 21 May 2012 at 2:20 pm 55.Prime said …

    No, the “goes in, goes out” and “checkmate, atheist” meme jokes were for the smart people here to snicker at. Suh’s response will probably be for laughing at.

    Damn… I’m getting good at poisoning the well.

  56. on 21 May 2012 at 7:29 pm 56.DPK said …

    I suppose it is just inconceivable to Suh that any good, upright god fearing christian would stoop to lying about something to sell books, paintings (yes, check out Storm’s paintings on his website…) or fleece people out of money. Just like you can trust your child with a priest, they would never do anything to harm a child.

  57. on 21 May 2012 at 7:38 pm 57.Lou(DFW) said …

    44.Suh said …

    Let us begin with Lou’s claim:

    “you made an absolute statement of fact that his NDE “…was real for him…,” please explain to us how you know that or you can simply retract it”

    “Do you deny that Storm’s NDE was real to him?

    Read the statement closely, think about it. Your credibility is on the line.”

    Lou never answered. At least he has the common sense not respond with something as stupid as you did.

  58. on 21 May 2012 at 7:56 pm 58.Suh said …

    “No, you idiot. I deny that you can know whether or not Storm’s NDE was real to him or not.”

    Personal attacks, of course to be expected. Then we cannot believe anything anyone tell us including you. Your are NOT a mathematician and all scientist are just lying to us, it is a conspiracy! Let us assume the worst of all people.

    If a man tells me he love his wife, I assume he does. When Storm tells me he experienced an NDE, I accept it unless you can prove he is lying. Real or not, it is HIS experience not DFW’s.

    But I am quite sure this is a limit you only put on all the theist the atheists hate.

  59. on 21 May 2012 at 8:21 pm 59.Anonymous said …

    Ah, everything in Suh’s world is true until proven false.

    Therefore, according to Suh, the statement “Suh is a sock-puppet, a troll, and a liar” is correct until proven false.

    Based on Suh’s premise, we have no reason to interact with Suh until Suh proves that statement false.

  60. on 21 May 2012 at 8:24 pm 60.Prime said …

    Do you understand the concept of motive, Suh?

    This man has a motive, to become wealthy, to lie here. It’s very well known that it’s very easy to fleece desperate religious believers out of money by telling them exactly the kind of drivel they want to hear.

    Even if his experience was real to him, though, you can’t make the statement that was made above that you know it was real to him. You can’t know that. It’s very simple. Since you don’t seem to understand that, or what we’re actually talking about here, I called you an idiot. Personally, I figure I was doing you a favor since you seem unlikely to know it on your own, being an idiot and all.

    If a man tells me that he loves his wife, on the other hand, his motives still can be questioned, but the consequences of belief of that claim are exceedingly low. Very little skepticism is needed, even if he’s saying it specifically to cover up for the fact that he’s cheating on her with her sister. As far as you’re concerned, what does it matter if he’s cheating? It’s not likely to cost you anything or change your behavior to be afraid of a make-believe house of horrors (hell) that gets you to live in fear and under an immoral framework that you feel compelled to thrust upon others.

    No one has to assume the worst about anyone here. You just have to learn to evaluate claims skeptically when it is of some importance.

  61. on 21 May 2012 at 8:52 pm 61.Lou(DFW) said …

    58.Suh said …

    “Personal attacks…”

    You confused a personal attack with an observation of you based upon your comments.

    “…of course to be expected.”

    In reply to my comment you wrote:

    “39.Suh said …

    “DFW is your IQ around 40?”

    “I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you can’t read.”

    …of course to be expected. Enough said, AGAIN.

  62. on 21 May 2012 at 8:54 pm 62.DPK said …

    “If a man tells me he love his wife, I assume he does. When Storm tells me he experienced an NDE, I accept it unless you can prove he is lying.”

    So, do you “accept” that this guy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWah_PX7WRE
    was really abducted by aliens until someone can prove he is lying?
    If not, you have a double standard.

  63. on 21 May 2012 at 9:04 pm 63.Suh said …

    “This man has a motive, to become wealthy, to lie here.”

    A big bold claim. Prove it, then we allow you to be fallacious by moving to another subject.

    People who have NDEs, including an atheist in Europe before he died a few years ago, rarely get rich.

    But prove Storm is looking to be rich, didn’t have some near death experience, then I will accept your claim.

    You IQ is on the line here.

  64. on 21 May 2012 at 9:10 pm 64.Lou(DFW) said …

    63.Suh said …

    “But prove Storm is looking to be rich, didn’t have some near death experience, then I will accept your claim.”

    Suh, according to the standards of yours and your ilk here, his comment is true unless you can prove it to be false.

    “You IQ is on the line here.”

    At least that’s nothing you must worry about.

  65. on 22 May 2012 at 1:11 am 65.Prime said …

    I already proved he has a motive to lie: profit, proved by the fact that he is commercially selling a book. I never claimed that I know that he is lying. I just said that I can’t know.

    Also, my IQ can’t be on the line. My IQ is a measurement of my ability to perform on a certain classification of tests. Even if I was 100% wrong here, which I am not, my IQ isn’t changed in the least. All that might be on the line is someone’s perception of my IQ. Since you’ve proved to be a very poor judge of things, I don’t care how that perception changes with you. I don’t think the perception of my IQ is falling with Lou, DPK, etc., based on your idiotic question. Yours, on the other hand….

    Honestly, and you get mad when I call you an idiot.
    I wonder if the grass gets mad when you call it green….

  66. on 22 May 2012 at 1:21 am 66.alex said …

    “Then we cannot believe anything anyone tell us including you”.

    absolutely. until it becomes convincing or at least believable. the opposite is: We must believe everything anyone tells us. so if i tolya that your god is fullshit, then you must believe, you Must.

  67. on 22 May 2012 at 1:47 am 67.Prime said …

    Actually, alex, we are under absolutely no requirement to be skeptical of everything, and normal social interactions would be needlessly cumbersome if we were. It really must come down, at some level, to a question of consequence or unbelievability of the claims.

    Example:
    A: “I went to the grocery store today.”
    B: “Prove it or you didn’t!”

    This is needlessly cumbersome, and we have no reason to doubt A in his claim that he went to the store. In most social interactions, unless B has a good reason to believe A might be lying (e.g. B is A’s spouse and has good reasons to think A was not at the store but was with a lover instead, perhaps even controverting evidence) or unless there is a serious consequence here (e.g. A is accused of murder and using that claim as an alibi), we have no reason to doubt A’s claim and get along with it, believing it just the same.

    A: “I went to the grocery store today and met President Obama there.”
    B: “Really? [Something that amounts to "prove it," usually like, "more details, including some that suggest authenticity of this unlikely tale.]

    In this case, A is making a rather surprising and substantive claim. While it is possible, it is also unlikely, and because in consequence it is rather a meaningful or conversation-worthy event (one that might be repeated, making B look like a fool if it’s uncovered to be a lie), B has grounds to be suspicious of A’s claim without more supporting evidence, perhaps an autograph, which does not prove the claim but substantiates the likelihood that the story might be true to a level of socially acceptable plausibility. The more times A has made up outlandish claims (perhaps in response to the motive of getting attention…), the more socially justified B is in being skeptical.

    So… usually we can just get along believing people about things. Sometimes, though, we should be skeptical of claims, like when the person making them has a motive to be dishonest or misleading, like when advertising or promoting a book that (s)he wants to sell. Do you really think OxyClean is going to get out every stain you’ve ever seen? Can we really believe when someone says they died in an already dubious set of circumstances and went to hell and had a NDE more vivid and detailed than any other on record, so much so that it’s considered anomalous by people that study these things, particularly when we know that you can make a lot of money–a lot of money–fabricating or embellishing these sorts of yarns and selling them to Christians?

    Maybe, to be nice, we should extend Storm the naive courtesy of accepting his claim at face-value, suspicious as it appears. That doesn’t mean we can claim we know he’s telling the truth. It also doesn’t mean that we can conclude that what he experienced, however “real” to him it might have been, bears in any way upon the way reality actually is.

    On the other hand, Suh is the one saying we should believe things until someone can prove that they didn’t happen, so your statement stands pretty well for him. What I just wrote above is (a) to try to convince Suh that I am thinking clearly on the matter (though it won’t work), and (b) to keep any of the reasonable rest of us from wandering into silly land just to defeat Suh.

  68. on 22 May 2012 at 2:12 am 68.alex said …

    It is more cumbersome to be deterministic. Maybe, I shouldn’t have said not believe, after all there is a third choice, to not care?

    People say stuff all the time and most of the time I could care less. We can debate all we want, but truly the default position is non belief.

    You went to the grocery store, so what? I do/don’t believe or I could care less. NDEs are a bunch of shit and I’m not obligated to believe it. So tell me, which is more believable, a case of beer for $10 or $15 bucks?

  69. on 22 May 2012 at 2:44 am 69.Prime said …

    Depends on the case, I guess. :-)

    I agree with you generally. I’m just restating the obvious: we believe each other about stuff that doesn’t matter much all the time, and we do it without proof. We shouldn’t do it when it matters, though, as it does in this case for people being taken in by Storm.

  70. on 22 May 2012 at 2:58 am 70.Prime said …

    I still want to know why no one has addressed the fact that Storm, ostensibly wanting to sound credible here, goes totally pro-wrestling from about 1:15-1:35 in the video. Nothing says credible like a pre-”fight” talk from a wrestler.

  71. on 22 May 2012 at 3:12 am 71.DPK said …

    Exactly. He wants people to believe he has had some kind of otherworldly experience, but he describes it like a bad “B” movie. The densiens of hell sent to torment him are scared off by ” god bless America” “the lord is my shepard” and other sound bites he himself describes as ” anything churchy sounding”. Does that sound like a real experience with supernatural beings, or more like what would impress some redneck idiot from East Bumblefuck, AK?

  72. on 22 May 2012 at 3:21 am 72.Anonymous said …

    I still want to know why no one has addressed the fact that Storm, ostensibly wanting to sound credible here, goes totally pro-wrestling from about 1:15-1:35 in the video. Nothing says credible like a pre-”fight” talk from a wrestler.

    Why has no-one addressed that? Because most of the posts here are made as an opportunity for the sock-puppet contingent to demonstrate their outstanding command of logical fallacy and personal insult? They don’t appear to care about the content, what they are looking for is some form of pay-back.

    Why does Storm go all angry in the video? He’s preaching to people’s biases. To use your wrestling analogy, he’s setting up the bad guy using characteristics he and his followers want to believe apply to his opponent. Just like wrestling, those characteristics are make-believe but serve as a convenient rallying point for those where a story matters more than reality.

    Next question. When the 40Y-idiot makes his angry assertions of immorality does he realize that the only way he can be correct is if he is describing himself?

  73. on 22 May 2012 at 3:34 am 73.Prime said …

    The question really was rhetorical so I could get more people to go look at the fact that he says “…brother” and then starts yelling like the Macho Man. It’s pretty f-ing funny. In fact, it’s my favorite part of the video by a long, long way.

    74.Anonymous said …

    “Next question. When the 40Y-idiot makes his angry assertions of immorality does he realize that the only way he can be correct is if he is describing himself?”

    We call it projection. He can’t face the cognitive dissonance caused by his delusion, so he projects his own qualities onto others in order to try to distract from the fact that he suffers from them. Paul, it seems, did the same thing. You can read a nice long bit of it not too far into Romans 1 in the New Testament.

  74. on 22 May 2012 at 3:05 pm 74.Anonymous said …

    Poor Stan – http://martinspribble.com/archives/2510

  75. on 22 May 2012 at 3:47 pm 75.Prime said …

    After reading that (in #74), I’m vaguely convinced that Stan might not be projecting as much as I originally thought. He probably is, don’t get me wrong, but another piece of the puzzle seems to have locked into place: if he really was a “40 year atheist,” as he claims, then he was one of those de facto, unexamined atheists, and so he’s possibly legitimately remembering his time where he wandered around blindly and yet not believing, obviously incredibly ignorant, and then found faith. When he found faith, he recast his whole previous existence in terms of faith and garbled it up even more. In other words, he never really took what John Loftus calls “the outsider’s test,” which I still contend is a one-way street if taken honestly.

  76. on 22 May 2012 at 4:24 pm 76.alex said …

    we need to create some kinda atheist certification.

    these quasi atheists just get on my damn nerves. to resolve their dissonance, they revert back and conveniently package their so called experience into a divinely inspired testimony and use it to make a buck. worse, they rile up the natives.

    what’s are the requirements for an atheist? i’m fairly certain i am.

  77. on 22 May 2012 at 4:33 pm 77.Lou(DFW) said …

    75.Prime said …

    “he never really took what John Loftus calls “the outsider’s test,” which I still contend is a one-way street if taken honestly.”

    Here’s a link to some “news” about him. I may have posted it before.

    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/john-loftus-is-mad-as-hell-and-isnt-going-to-take-it-any-more/

  78. on 22 May 2012 at 5:25 pm 78.Anonymous said …

    Regarding Stan. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

  79. on 22 May 2012 at 5:52 pm 79.Prime said …

    Lou, you posted the blog post where Loftus called it quits, but not this (so far as I know). I’m a big fan of Loftus. Drew a lot of inspiration from him. I guess he deserves a break, though. I mean, ffs, he lives on the front lines and repeatedly, intentionally engages the fundies on their own turf.

  80. on 22 May 2012 at 6:32 pm 80.A said …

    Suh

    I must say Prime may have a point. I would not put it past an atheist to pretend to have converted to Christ to make a buck. After all, for them lying is OK in the right circumstances. Prime and I have no proof, but certainly possible.

  81. on 22 May 2012 at 6:40 pm 81.A said …

    I loved the link to Martin ranting about Stan. Another atheist claiming morals evolve from culture.

    Ladies in Iran, keep your heads down!!

    The atheist delusion is alive.

  82. on 22 May 2012 at 6:43 pm 82.Prime said …

    “Arise from society” and “evolve from culture” are two different ideas. Why can’t you see that “no absolute morals” does not mean relative morality, i.e. whatever a society deems as moral is moral?

    What is so hard for you people about “Morality comes from a rational consideration of the self and others, knowing that our actions have consequences that impact others and choosing to act in a way that minimizes suffering while maximizing well-being according to the situation”?

    Why is that so freaking hard for you people to get your heads around?

    Is it because you’re stuck on “God said it; I believe it; I’m an idiot!”?

  83. on 22 May 2012 at 6:44 pm 83.Prime said …

    *Correction: “no absolute morals” does not mean **moral relativism**

    The specific term was evading me for a few seconds there.

  84. on 22 May 2012 at 7:35 pm 84.Lou(DFW) said …

    80.Asstrophysicist said …

    “Suh

    “I must say Prime may have a point.”

    Suh is in hiding, exactly where you should be.

  85. on 22 May 2012 at 8:36 pm 85.Lou(DFW) said …

    80.A said …

    Suh

    “I must say Prime may have a point. I would not put it past an atheist to pretend to have converted to Christ to make a buck. After all, for them lying is OK in the right circumstances. Prime and I have no proof, but certainly possible.”

    Really?

    So now we know why Lou never replied to my comment:

    “you made an absolute statement of fact that his NDE “…was real for him…,” please explain to us how you know that or you can simply retract it”

    And that Suh was incorrect when he wrote:

    “I know I can make the claim that Howard’s NDE is real to him because he is writing books and doing interviews telling us so.”

    According to you, Storm’s “lying is OK in the right circumstances. Prime and I have no proof, but certainly possible.”

  86. on 22 May 2012 at 8:42 pm 86.Lou(DFW) said …

    82.Prime said …

    “Why is that so freaking hard for you people to get your heads around?

    “Is it because you’re stuck on “God said it; I believe it…”

    They must believe that morals come from god because if they denied that, then they would, in effect, be denying that god exists.

    “I’m an idiot!”

    And that too.

  87. on 22 May 2012 at 10:29 pm 87.Suh said …

    A said “I would not put it past an atheist to pretend to have converted to Christ to make a buck.”

    I agree. I could see an Atheist using religion strictly for monetary gain. However unless I have proof to the contrary, I tend to accept the persons’ word. That doesn’t mean I buy the book, but I accept they had a life changing experience. Only they truly know.

    I don’t ever want to get as callous and shallow as the Atheist worldview.

  88. on 22 May 2012 at 10:34 pm 88.Lou(DFW) said …

    87.Suh said …

    “I agree.”

    Then you agree that as A. said it’s possible Storm is lying?

    “I don’t ever want to get as callous and shallow as the Atheist worldview.”

    You can’t, because there is no such thing. Why do you keep lying about it?

  89. on 22 May 2012 at 10:46 pm 89.40 year Atheist said …

    Jake Farr-Wharton has engaged the observations which I placed on the Martin S Pribble blog yesterday. Farr-Wharton has claimed exceptional morality and now takes on the task of providing data for the proof of Atheism:

    “On the contrary, every field of study attributing their findings to the scientific method (i.e. we made a prediction and tested it, then repeated it, then put it out for everyone else to test it, and it remains valid until proven invalid or improved upon) finds that we live in a natural universe without any influence from outside (supernatural) forces.”

    Sir, your definition of the scientific method is only partial, having omitted the very first sort. The first sort is done by determining the falsifiability of the proposition. This is the Popper Demarcation Principle (note 1). This merely says that if a claim cannot be proven false using empirical, material techniques, then it is not a proposition which science can address. Now you claim to use premise/conclusion, so let’s put this principle into a syllogistic deductive format:

    P1: IF[a proposition Q is not falsifiable under empirical material testing procedures], THEN [it is not available for adjudication under the procedures of empirical science];

    P2: Proposition Q is not falsifiable under material testing procedures;

    C: Therefore empirical science cannot adjudicate Proposition Q.
    Now then, the proposition, Q, might be that ”there is no non-material existence”.

    Empirical science is voluntarily and functionally material-limited (not philosophically, only functionally). So there is no material procedure which can test for non-material existence. This is a given, an understood limitation of science. Being unable to test the proposition, the proposition cannot be either proven nor can it be falsified (refuted). So science is impotent in the case of Proposition Q.

    In fact, the assertion/belief that science can, in fact, adjudicate questions of non-material existence is false, and is known as Scientism, an erroneous belief system. It is also a Category Error of the most basic kind, expecting to find Set [!A] within Set [A]. (note 2)

    So the use of science to make a claim about non-physical existence is a false procedure. It proves nothing, because of the impotence of science when science is pushed outside its limitations. This is fatal to Scientistic claims.

    Therefore, now that you see the full extent of scientific theory, the limitations of science to material questions, and the failure of Scientism as a philosophical proposition, surely you will reconsider your evaluation.
    ” The premise above, which posits that all scientific findings support a naturalistic universe without any requirement or evidence of any of the millions of gods and supernatural deities that humanity has believed in since our ancestors gained an enormous cortex capable of introspection, concludes that atheism is indeed an evidence based position.”

    The abject failure of the first proposition causes the use of that proposition in this claim to flunk this claim as well. Furthermore, you have not attempted in the slightest degree, so far, to provide any actual empirical scientific data that shows the complete non-existence of non-physical existence. What you have chosen to present is presumptions (based on ignoring certain issues which I will get to in a moment) which are that “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”, a demonstrably false proposition. Here is your basis for your Truth statement.
    IF [there is no evidence for P], THEN [P cannot exist].

    Since science is your only source of knowledge, then I challenge you to devise an experiment which shows this to be the case for all possible P.

    What you are actually asserting is the standard Inductive Fallacy of philosophical misapplication, which says that if there is no evidence for black swans, then black swans do not exist. This is false. It is an improper inductive extrapolation. Further, true logical induction does not assert that its findings are adequate to be a universal philosophical Truth, as you do. Inductive logic merely says that no swans that are not white have been observed so far. This is a statement of fact, not of philosophical Truth. The comparable statement in your case is this:

    ”No gods or God or god-dependency has been observed in the observable portion of the universe, using current technology for material observation”.
    That is the full extent of the capability of inductive science; the actual limits of inductive knowledge must be honestly declared. To claim more than is actually inductively known is to add metaphysical presumptions which are not in any way scientific understandings. However, even the limited inductive statement shown is false, because there are observations of non-physical interference which have to be ignored in order to make that claim.

    The claims made regarding an observed series of non-natural occurrences at Lourdes, France is always available for material refutation. There is even a material remnant which is available for refutation, and a heavily documented observation of its occurrence. This constitutes a refutation of the original calim which you made regarding a complete lack of evidence: evidence is available for you to examine and refute using the empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable, peer reviewed techniques which you prefer. Until you have presented replicated and non-falsified data refuting this claim at Lourdes, you cannot make the statement that there exists no evidence, because there is evidence at Lourdes.

    Further, the existence of agency is contradictory to a deterministic universe, as is life, consciousness, mind, qualia, and irrational behaviors as well as rational comprehension and self-awareness. So scientism, even if it were coherent, is not enough to declare knowledge which Atheists think they have.

    To summarize this part before venturing further:
    1. Your claim of evidence is shown to be a Category Error and misapprehension of the limits of materialist science.

    2. Your claim of evidence is based on the Inductive Fallacy and cannot be accepted.

    3. Your claim of evidence is falsified until the claims made at Lourdes and similar claims are successfully empirically refuted.

    4. Your Scientistic claims are non-coherent as will be demonstrated below.
    Since the evidence which you claim is actually inadequate and inappropriate to the purpose given it, the original position that Atheists have no evidence and are therefore engaged in blind belief stands.

    Next:
    ” While I am unsure of what is meant by the term “escalating scepticism”, chiefly because you made it up, I can indeed speak to the idea of an asymmetrical approach to dealing with multifaceted issues.
    If you told me that there was a white chair in my office, I could walk into my office and check your claim. In a metaphorical way, this could be described as a symmetrical or linear way to address your claim. If, however, you told me that there was a white chair orbiting the distant star Betelgeuse, I would, metaphorically speaking, have to take a multifaceted approach to counter your claim. Such an approach, again, metaphorically, could be considered asymmetrical.

    With that stated, your claim is an ad hominem, and thus not considered an argument. As such, sir/madam, your argument premise is faulty, thus your argument is invalid. Please retract it at your earliest convenience.”
    Escalating skepticism is observable as a process within the Atheist argumentation procedure. Being observable, it is an empirical statement and not an imagined fabrication as you imply. It generally works like this: After Scientism has been deleted as a way of knowing anything about the non-physical esxistence, Atheists tend to use their own metaphysical beliefs, of which they are completely non-skeptical. However, any contrary metaphysics presented to them, even as grounded deductive propositions which are grounded in both empirical observations and First Principle axioms, those propositions will be attacked with increasing skeptical denialism until complete Pyrhonnian denialism is used, if necessary.

    So the skepticism generally used by Atheists in argumentation is both asymmetrical (not applied to their own propositions), and escalating as deductive propositions are presented to them.

    So the claim, being empirically observed, is not Ad Hominem in the least. The supposed refutation is denied.

    Next:
    ” The first premise of your argument, that “atheism presents no morals” is correct. Around 2.5 million years ago our ancestor, Homo habilis began congregating in ever larger groups, as evidenced by the remains they left behind. Due to the fact that the ability to congregate, an ability which we take for granted (if you question this, please experiment by placing a foreign mature male gorilla in an established group), confers such an immense advantage in survival, those who were able to stay in groups passed on their sociable genes and propagated the remainder of the Homo genus with that trait.”
    This is a Just So Story without any empirical, replicable data for support. Which genes are the “sociable genes”? What mutations brought them into place? When were they actually observed to have been passed on for the first time? What data shows that non-gene carriers did not survive because they could not assimilate into the group? This is a fabricated story which is fabricated out of whole cloth in order to satisfy a hole in the actual, empirical knowledge base. Using such a fatuous fable for a Truth statement renders the worldview which depends on it to be based on a demonstrable fable, not on any sort of Truth. It is actually a metaphysical prop, not fact in any sense.
    ” Today, we call this trait “morality” (the elements that make up morality we call “ethics”), despite the fact that theists give it an absolute value, it is a continuously evolving socially derived mechanism.”
    Yes, this is the concept which many Atheists use: morals are socially derived, so in a given society, whatever they choose for themselves is Moral, by Atheist definition. This total flexiblity in moral sense is the reason that Dawkins observed that it is not possible for him to fault Hitler, who was doing the socially-derived moral thing. Under the Atheist concept of morality, there is exactly no morality as a fixed concept. As society “evolves”, it can accept killing fetuses, then killing defective postnatal babies (PNAC), then killing old people by denying health care (Obama’s “grandma”), then killing subnormal individuals who “can’t have a productive, happy life”, then killing subnormal ethnic groups who are not productive, etc., and there is no end to this “rational” progression.. This is only an example, not an actual progression, yet it is not precluded under Atheist variable moral theories (think Peter Singer).

    These progressions, while not yet in force, of course are not morals, they are Consequentialist tactics which are deemed moral, because Atheists thought them up and call them such. The word “morality” has come to have no meaning under Atheism, because it encompasses any and all behaviors, discriminating against none. A concept which has no capacity to discriminate or differentiate against what it is not, is useless: morality = any and all behaviors.

    In the shorter term, however, Atheists find that they cannot generate any trust from others, because they believe in the total variability of Consequentialism as their ethic/tactic. In fact, there is no reason for one Atheist to trust any other Atheist, because of the extreme fluidity of their “moral” system.
    ”Evidence of this is the fact that slavery is abhorred in the West, yet continues in the East (and is both justified and endorsed in the New and Old Testaments of the bible). Further evidence of this is feminism and equality in the West and honour killing, segregation and subjugation of women in the East.”

    The difference in morality show above is merely the difference between good and evil, not in genetic evolutionary processes. In fact, Atheists claim that there is no good or evil, but that God is evil, of course.

    In fact, by making this claim you are claiming that the denizens of the West are further morally evolved than the denizens of the East. And that claim is obviously racist. Unless you care to back up your evolution claim with genetic data showing that the denizens of the East are actually genetically inferior to the denizens of the West your claim must be seen as bigoted. In your defense, I doubt that you will claim that there is a genetic lag in Easter peoples; I suspect that you didn’t see the consequence of your theory, which is non-coherent even under Atheist standards.

    Now you might argue that neither moral claim is better or worse than the other moral claim; that would prove that there is no consistent moral basis for the Atheist worldview, and anything goes, morally.

    Or you might claim that it is Western society which evolved, not humans, and that would invalidate your evolutionary claim above regarding humans and genetic change.

    And this:
    ” The remainder of your argument is objectively invalid because, as explained in the above two paragraphs, atheists do not make up morality, morality, an evolved trait, exists as a social construct independent of any religion or ideology.”
    Until you present your empirical, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed data to support this metaphysical claim, you have not proven your case. In fact, you have made up the concept that morality is [R], where R = social construct. Other Atheists do not agree, and accept Consequentialism, and still others don’t agree with that and accept Virtue Ethics. So your position is a fabricated one, one which is not universal within Atheism, and not proof of anything regarding Morality, except that for Atheists, it is whatever they say it is, whenever they say it.

    Your argument then cannot be accepted.

    Now for this:
    ” “Here’s another claim: Atheists have no evidence or logic which proves incorrigibly that there is no continuity of life which is not attached to the dead corpse.”

    If you will consider reading my first response, you will find that I have already addressed this claim. As such, sir/madam, your argument premise is faulty, thus your argument is invalid. Please retract it at your earliest convenience.”
    You have in no manner presented the empirical, experimental data you promised up front. Where is your experiment on dead corpses showing that consciousness, for example, is dead also (producing the dead consciousness for our examination) and therefore without any continuity? My claim is that you don’t have such data, and my suspicion is that you will claim something along the lines of “that requirement is unfair”, or some other claim absolving yourself from providing the empirical, scientific data you promised.

    Remember this about science: deduction is useful only for creating hypotheses; the hypotheses must be physically tested, or they cannot have any value as knowledge. Hard data is required, in real science.

    And this:
    ” What I do notice, however, is that both sides are rarely able to find common ground due to the theist’s inability to move past the inherent cognitive dissonance and into the evidence refuting their belief system. The inherent cognitive dissonance I speak of is summed up in the first point I made above.”
    Your claim #1 is demonstrably false, so the cognitive dissonance would be on your side, because you have accepted a false premise which you use as the foundational argument. There has been no evidence provided in the form of direct empirical testing of the propositions, despite your claim to adhere to thescientific method. None: zero hard data. So your claim to science as the basis for your belief is false.

    Your insults are unbecoming and yet are common to the Atheist dialog:
    ” You’ve gone from making inconsistent and fallacious claims bereft of all evidence, to ranting. As such, I assumed you were low on batteries, though I fully acknowledge that you could be a diabetic, in which case, please, for the appeasement of the 10,000 gods of the Hindu pantheon, eat some sugar!”

    You probably mistake that for wit, the wit of the master you suppose yourself to be. In fact those are merely cheap childish insults, and quite standard for Atheist comments. Yet you, the master, have provided no hard evidence to support your case.

    Here’s what evidence would be required to support your case:
    1. Data on non-physical entities, showing conclusively that they do not exist. (not possible due to the Popper demarcation principle).
    2. Data showing that there is no knowledge outside of empirical science.
    3. Data showing that there is a “sociability gene”.
    4. Data showing observations of the sociability gene evolving.
    5. Data showing that gene to have created ethics.
    6. Data showing that there is a moral genetic difference between Western and Eastern populations.

    Finally,
    ” We have demonstrated above that atheism is an evidence based, logically coherent and rational position to hold.”
    You have demonstrated that you do not understand the fallacy of using inductive evidence for philosophical purposes. That alone falsifies your entire set of arguments. And you have not even made a claim of demonstrating logical coherence, so it is legitimate to wonder if you know what that entails. As for logical coherence, your first point above (the basis for the rest of your argument) is in fact not logically coherent. Here’s why:
    P1: [if science can provide all knowledge], THEN [science can prove itself true].

    This is a statement of Scientism in syllogistic form: it is clearly not the case that science can prove itself true (Godel’s second theorem). Therefore your Scientistic claim is internally contradictory, and non-coherent. Being non-coherent, it is not rational. Here’s why:
    P1: IF [science can provide all knowledge] & [science cannot prove itself true], THEN [the truth value science is not provable or knowable].
    Since the consequent contradicts the antecedent (first part) then the idea of Scientism is non-coherent.

    So your entire last statement is false. Your argument is not evidence-based, it is not coherent, it is not rational.

    You have provided no actual scientific material data except that which you erroneously use as an inductive base, and you have ignored existing contrary evidence; you have provided no case for logical coherence and have failed coherence as demonstrated; you have presented only one premise: scientism as fact (it is not coherent). So your argument cannot be accepted.

  90. on 22 May 2012 at 10:48 pm 90.Martin S Pribble said …

    Just sticking my head in here, since I noticed there were some hits to Jake’s guest piece at my blog. Stan retorts to Jake’s piece here:
    http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/jake-farr-wharton-responds.html

  91. on 22 May 2012 at 11:10 pm 91.alex said …

    89.40 year Atheist said …

    what is your game? what are you trying to achieve with your ridiculous crap? how’s it working? pointing out irrelevant things make you what? even if ALL atheists assertions and/or claims are wrong, your god is still bullshit.

    even if science is Wrong or bullshit, your god is still bullshit. capiche?

  92. on 23 May 2012 at 12:32 am 92.Prime said …

    Yet again Stan puts a bunch of crap. Yet again I don’t read it because he’s already proved himself so outstandingly unlikely to put forth a single reasonable premise that it’s not worth my time (or frustration) to read it.

  93. on 23 May 2012 at 1:19 am 93.Anonymous said …

    Stan’s posts have been regularly reduced into three parts:

    1) False premise / Straw man / Outright lies.
    2) Word salad / fallacies / contradictions / non sequiturs/ Gish Gallop.
    3) Erroneous, fallacious, or circular conclusions.

    It’s not worth the time to read them as many have been deconstructed but he posts then runs for cover. A truer intellectual coward hasn’t seen the light of day for a long time.

  94. on 23 May 2012 at 1:32 am 94.Prime said …

    I vote for more Gish Gallop. Get on that, Stan. Chop, chop!

  95. on 23 May 2012 at 2:24 am 95.DPK said …

    In case no one else has noticed, Stan is a crazy nut job. The deluded theists seem to b impressed because he has mastered the art of bullshit, what they have been conditioned, like Pavolian dogs, to respond to with awe and respect. In fact, his bullshit is just the ravings of a lunatic.

  96. on 23 May 2012 at 2:27 am 96.Anonymous said …

    Well, I sampled Stan’s first paragraph. Two sentences, one straw man, one lie.

  97. on 23 May 2012 at 2:46 am 97.A said …

    DPK, that would be Pavlovian. Just another Mansion for you. I see the wheel is spinning, but the hamster looks dead.

    40YA

    What you have done is pick apart an angry crazed atheist with his own attempt at principles of logic. Always the best tactic.

    Maybe he will call you a doody head next time :)

  98. on 23 May 2012 at 3:24 am 98.Lou(DFW) said …

    97.A said …

    “What you have done is pick apart an angry crazed atheist with his own attempt at principles of logic. Always the best tactic.”

    No, the best tactic would be to present some actual, real evidence of your imaginary god – but you NEVER, EVER do that. That’s why you guys must to result to b.s. and lies to prop-up your ancient, goat-herder myths.

  99. on 23 May 2012 at 3:34 am 99.Anonymous said …

    98.Lou – Note that the theists only come out when then can launch their personal attacks.

    When they are asked to provide evidence, or if they are called on their claims, they run away. Just like Stan the 40Y-Coward.

  100. on 23 May 2012 at 12:44 pm 100.Lou(DFW) said …

    95.DPK said …

    “In case no one else has noticed, Stan is a crazy nut job. The deluded theists seem to b impressed because he has mastered the art of bullshit, what they have been conditioned, like Pavolian dogs, to respond to with awe and respect. In fact, his bullshit is just the ravings of a lunatic.”

    40YA is that homeless person standing on the street corner who screams and preaches at you as you walk past him. But 40YA has a bigger vocabulary than that guy.

  101. on 23 May 2012 at 3:35 pm 101.DPK said …

    “97.A said …
    DPK, that would be Pavlovian. Just another Mansion for you. I see the wheel is spinning, but the hamster looks dead.
    40YA
    What you have done is pick apart an angry crazed atheist with his own attempt at principles of logic. Always the best tactic.
    Maybe he will call you a doody head next time :)

    That’s a funny observation from someone who’s only contribution to the conversation is commenting on typos. Especially ironic from someone who doesn’t know “Always the best tactic.” isn’t a complete sentence and who thinks it’s grammatically correct to end a sentence with a smiley as punctuation.

    Anyway, yes, I have always been mildly dyslexic, and transposing letters and numbers has always been a bit of a challenge for me. I’m glad you find it so amusing. Now, do you have anything of substance to add, or should we take the fact that you actually think Stan’s crazed, disjointed ramblings actually make sense as evidence enough of your lack of capacity for rational thought?

  102. on 23 May 2012 at 3:44 pm 102.DPK said …

    “40YA is that homeless person standing on the street corner who screams and preaches at you as you walk past him. But 40YA has a bigger vocabulary than that guy.”

    But sadly is no less psychotic. Just goes to show you that an associate’s degree in philosophy can be a dangerous thing to the bandwidth of the internet.

    I picture Stan typing furiously on his Commodore64 in the corner of his mother’s basement near the washing machine and slugging back Red Bulls, while his dad yells at him to go find a job.

  103. on 23 May 2012 at 3:56 pm 103.Anonymous said …

    Stan is not a crazy nut job. We should not attack him with insulting and needless name calling. It serves no purpose. Instead, we should dismantle each of his arguments as seen in “90.Martin S Pribble” and show Stan that he is spouting nonsense.

  104. on 23 May 2012 at 4:08 pm 104.Anonymous said …

    Stan’s arguments have been dismantled as you suggest many, many times. However, he pays no heed to that so it’s an exercise in futility. There’s no point when all he does is post the same drivel time after time after time.

    That Stan posts his rants, and you should be clear that it’s not new but recycled missives that he has previously posted elsewhere, then cuts and runs should also speak volumes as to his intentions and willingness to engage in discussion.

    He has been shown to be spouting nonsense. He doesn’t care, he just continues. He has lost any right to be other than summarily dismissed.

  105. on 23 May 2012 at 4:21 pm 105.DPK said …

    Yes, Stan never, ever engages in any defense or discourse here. All he EVER does is cut and paste volumes of his circular logic from his equally tedious blog, where, even there, anyone who disagrees with his is summarily banned.

    His is the definition of a crazy lunatic, and his verbal diarrhea has been systematically dismantled time and time again. It doesn’t dissuade him in the least. All he does is immediately follow any criticism by posting under his sock puppet persona “A” and comment on what a brilliant fellow he is while pointing out typos and misspellings as evidence of the intellectual inferiority of his critics. About as transparent as can be.

  106. on 23 May 2012 at 4:43 pm 106.Xenon said …

    A,

    It is funny how much Stan bothers these Atheists. It could be jealously, self-esteem or helplessness. I’m not sure. If any Atheist here could mount a credible counter argument, I’m sure he would rebut but there is nothing but childish attacks.

    It’s great.

  107. on 23 May 2012 at 5:00 pm 107.Lou(DFW) said …

    106.Xenon said …

    “If any Atheist here could mount a credible counter argument, I’m sure he would rebut but there is nothing but childish attacks.”

    Who cares what you’re sure about? The fact is that he doesn’t reply to any rebuttals here. If he won’t, then he shouldn’t post them. But then again, that behavior is typical of most theists here, including you.

    It says something about him that the only thing he does here is C&P years old entries from his blog. It also says something about people like you who don’t do anything here but support him by writing STAN IS GREAT AND YOU AREN’T in the face of rebuttals and personal attacks.

    Now, do you have any other irrelevant comments to post? If not, then where your evidence for your imaginary god?

  108. on 23 May 2012 at 5:02 pm 108.Prime said …

    106.Xenon said …

    “It is funny how much Stan bothers these Atheists.”

    Yet again you demonstrate your complete lack of ability to get your head around something. Stan aggravates us because he repeatedly lies, ignores criticisms, and lies again.

    In other words, Stan gets on our nerves because we’re honest people dealing with a pathological liar and no way to shut him up completely.

  109. on 23 May 2012 at 8:18 pm 109.alex said …

    “It is funny how much Stan bothers these Atheists. It could be jealously, self-esteem or helplessness. I’m not sure….”

    hilarious ain’t it? stan, and his homies implicitly endorse the oppression of women and gays, molesting kids, blah, blah, the list is long.

    ok, i’m everything you say I am, a godless, monkey descendant, hellbound, gay loving, crossdressing, jungle fever, etc, etc.

    you otoh, is on stan’s side, and that implicitly makes you a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, childmolesting theist.

    pleze, don’t give me that shit about not being like the rest of them. i bet you endorsed the NC ban.

  110. on 23 May 2012 at 8:29 pm 110.alex said …

    106.Xenon said …

    notice how this site doesn’t censor people no matter what. check your hero’s (stan) site and see what happens to dissenters.

    this is an atheist site and stan is tolerated, but not liked. equal tolerance for all! idiots are called out.

  111. on 24 May 2012 at 1:23 am 111.A said …

    “It is funny how much Stan bothers these Atheists.”

    Not to be unexpected Xenon. They spend more time talking about 40YA than they do the issue he discusses. It is the classic response to being over-matched by one who is superior in their arguments. They can’t comprehend it therefore they attack him.

    It is a fascinating study reflective of human nature.

  112. on 24 May 2012 at 2:16 am 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    111.Asstrophysicist said …

    “Not to be unexpected Xenon.”

    How many of you friends of Hor went to the same grammar school?

    They spend more time talking about 40YA than they do the issue he discusses.”

    Really? How much time do we spend? And most of the time his “issues” aren’t relevant to the discussion.

    “It is the classic response to being over-matched by one who is superior in their arguments.”

    One thing is for sure, we don’t have to worry about that with you. But yes, we are “over-matched” by him in that he is a master at b.s. and overwhelming with volume.

    “They can’t comprehend it therefore they attack him.”

    Yes, there are attacks on him, but not because he isn’t comprehended. It’s because he lies about atheists and he doesn’t reply to replies to his rants.

    “It is a fascinating study reflective of human nature.”

    As is the delusion of religion that forces people like you to lie about atheists.

    Care to present any evidence for your imaginary god?

  113. on 24 May 2012 at 2:31 am 113.Anonymous said …

    “111.A said …”

    Sorry, but no free pass. I suspect you are probably a sock. You prop up your hero Stan, the proven superior cut and paste specialist.

    If you’re not a sock, then you are easily impressed, exactly the type Stan is seeking. Brainwashed early on, you are susceptible to big words and intellectual sounding blah, blahs. Stan’s crap is the reinforcement you need to validate your delusion.

    Stan’s ramblings is not meant for me or any other atheist, it’s written for you.

    Theists will probably never get it. You can believe in any god you want as long as you keep it to yourself. If theists would do this, what else would an atheist do?

  114. on 24 May 2012 at 2:32 am 114.alex said …

    oops. 113 is my crap.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply