A guy calling hismelf "I am Skeptical, "he spends a lot of his time writing lies about my work. He didn't have the guts to show me the list until it was a mile long. Here is one of his piles of drivel.
https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/warrant-for-skepticism.html?showComment=1552751564038#c1375127513064659975
my response
https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/07/warrant-for-skepticism.html?showComment=1552751564038#c1375127513064659975
my response
I argue with this guy every day on my bogs. He is trying to get at me because I've beaten him so many times. The one thing I know from arguing with him is that he does not read anything he criticizes.
e
Look at his statement "The thesis of his book is to show that the scientific evaluation of empirical data relating to mystical experiences provides a rational scientific basis for belief in God. However, if that were really the case, the scientific community would be buzzing with the news of this empirical evidence for God. It is not. The fact of the matter is that the scientific community has yet to recognize the existence of any such evidence."
He had no counter study he has not read the studies he';s criticizing he does not have the credentials or the training to make the comments he's making. He is merely trading on prejudicial atheist ideology. The top researcher in the field professor at U. Tennessee @ Chattanooga. approved my work and supports it,he says so on the cover of the book, a nice little fact Skepie doesn't know because he's never seen the book. several other major researchers have singed on to it too. It's unethical of Skepie to withhold all of this talking don't know anything when in fact I have real academic scholars who support my work and he does not have that.
Of course scientists argue about what that data means. Atheists promote the little fantasy that science works by declaring everything true and law and proven so there's no argument. He will contradict that but obviously it would have to work that way to have the outcome his argument claims we would have.
Think about it if science is about disproving hypothesis as Popper says there is no scientific evidence to prove God then you can't have the kind of absolute proof he assumes we have vis the question of God. You are going to have arguments and denial among scientists about God. It can't be resolved clearly but that doesn't negate rationale evidence for God.
Here is the bottom line about the studies i use. Skepie is rejecting them based upon his preconceived notion Kathy science Can't support religious belief because he doesn't want to believe that it does. He's not basing it upon the studies because he's never read any of them, he;'s just asserting that they have to say what his little party line says they must.
is that science? In Texas we call it prejudice, we also call bull shit.