mastacsg (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

It makes me feel like their is some kind of conspiracy. Are we interested in truth or are we each just serving some subconcious agenda to convince people we're right? What's most frustrating is ALMOST all atheists claim to becoming from a position of strict rationality and a great deal of their arguments are false and irrational. I'm a scientist and a Christian and I'll tell you, I'm far more angered by nonsense disguised as common sense (with big words and jargon)than I am by an honest atheist.

mastacsg (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

As you said, youtube is a poor channel of communication. I thought it was obvious; OF COURSE I don't think every single atheist on the planet "pull out of their ass". But my original comment was a response to "Veritas48-The myth of conversion" video that this video is a response to. That guy is an atheist "pulling ideas out of his ass." Did you comment on that as well or choose to hone in on my comment because it seemed to be coming from a religious position?

ZarathustrasFinalSin (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

Oh! What the hell!, seriously (not about you) I've posted a slew of responses this morning and not a damn one has posted. Youtube, seriously, if you're not posting a video it's a horrible channel of communication. Oh well, anyway, yes I agree with you, & was only originally upset that you insinuated that *all* atheists simply make up psychology to fit with their preconceived notions about religion. If you had said "Some atheist ... pull out of their ass," as an atheist I'd agree with you. Peace.

ZarathustrasFinalSin (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

"But you make it seem as if I was saying atheists invented, PSYCHOLOGY."That's what I was originally responding to, and then you corrected yourself."It's not true. And it took two days to agree on that? Why?"Because that was ThksGving and I was out of town, this time, because I just now got that notice thingy in my comment screen icon when I first click on the youtube homepage. Why is there some conspiracy I should know about?...

mastacsg (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

Before I open a can of worms, I shouldn't imply that happy and sad are ego states, but rather I should say, to argue that what the video that this is in response to, is trying to adress a phenomenological reality, is false. The previous video is not adressing a PR, but just using what might be a stereotype to make a false argument about conversions. And you're defending it!

mastacsg (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

But you make it seem as if I was saying atheists invented, PSYCHOLOGY. When a Christian turns to God, they may be in any of a number of different situations, happy, sad, ie different ego-states. But in the disccussion we lift from these videos, it seems that atheists are making it seem like ALL conversions are primitive, predictable psychological reactions, perhpas to stress. It's not true. And it took two days to agree on that? Why?

mastacsg (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

Nor am I disputing the definition of the phrase "phenomenological reality". But in a conversation like this where we, (according to you) BOTH AGREE, why bring up the issue of ego states using academic language to defend the position that atheists do not invent what a Christian goes through when they convert? You say I'm not adressing your argument. Clearly we are not arguing. YOU understood what I was saying:that there is no pre-determined ego-state for a conversion experience.

mastacsg (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

I'm not debating that we can infer a meaning from the phrase "rebut ad-hominid", but it should be, as you put below, "ad-hominem". That is a latin phrase. But "reubt ad-hominid" is a bastardization of not, 1 but 3 languages. It's the equivalent of me saying "Bonjour, Senor Guy". It's ridiculous and pointless to speak like that, yet it's become quite common in talks like this.

ZarathustrasFinalSin (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

To a certain extent I DO AGREE, I actually wrote a paper earlier this year about the use of words like Ego, child, parent, adult, etc. when describing phenomena while it could be characterized differently. It interested me then because I noticed the choice of words alone gives tacit approval to ones previous (and current) theories whether correct for it to or not. Sorry if that comes off jumbled, word limit :( sux.

ZarathustrasFinalSin (December 31, 1969 at 3:59 pm)

Sorry, here's an example of a "phenomenological reality";Ego States as described by Eric Berne, explained dyadic transactions between people through parent, adult, and child ego states. "Ego states are not theoretical concepts. "They are "phenomenological realities." In other words, they are real, and evident whenever we communicate with other people."Op. cit., Eric Berne, Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy, p.24