Yes, you are so emotionally in control... LOL!!! Atheism has given you such peace of mind, that the calmness pervades and keeps you from knee jerk reactions... LOL!!! LOL!!! LOL!!! You are like a Timex watch TK9, you take a licking and keep on ticking...I can always count on your to show the mental illness of atheism is alive and well...
You keep saying that there are studies and numbers. Where are they? I looked up the few publications Vitz had, and most of them are on specialist psych/theology journals that are more story telling than study. He came from an experimental psych background. So I expect him to understand formal methods. Where are the numbers. Can you cite them here, because I can't fine them. Unlike you, I'm not actually being facetious. I really do want to see numbers if he's got any. False positives, false negatives, confusion matrices, the works. He knows what they are. He's trained in them. And he isn't fringe enough to not use these methods. So where are the numbers?
Oh, you are still ignoring my point that your so call proof that comes from the mayo study is entirely flawed. Like i said, you kept calling me out for not responding to all your silly points, so I'll do the same. Care to address it? or admit that in so far as that line of your "proof" goes, you are wrong. Not a difference in opinion, but logically incorrect. Of course you won't.
Very funny actually. Try applying some common sense, if not logic. At the forefront of the atheistic movement is science and scientists hellbent on pushing evolutionary theory, etc. If they could disprove and invalidate the Mayo study and Vitz study by running equivalent studies or analysis of data of the atheists Vitz studied...they would do so easily, right? After all, they are scientists, right? They should be able to do this with their eyes closed. LOL! By the way, publishing in journals specific to discipline is not an indicator that the study is invalid. Ever hear of the New England Journal of Medicine? It is not only specific to medicine, but also New England...at least that is what a Gomer would think... http://www.paulvitz.com/Bio.html
Truth Journal The Psychology of Atheism Professor Paul C. Vitz The title of this paper, "The Psychology of Atheism," may seem strange. Certainly, my psychological colleagues have found it odd and even, I might add, a little disturbing. After all, psychology, since its founding roughly a century ago, has often focused on the opposite topic-namely the psychology of religious belief. Indeed, in many respects the origins of modern psychology are intimately bound up with the psychologists who explicitly proposed interpretations of belief in God. William James and Sigmund Freud, for example, were both personally and professionally deeply involved in the topic. Recall The Will to Believe by James, as well as his still famous Varieties of Religious Experience. These two works are devoted to an attempt at understanding belief as the result of psychological, that is natural, causes. James might have been sympathetic to religion, but his own position was one of doubt and skepticism and his writings were part of psychology's general undermining of religious faith. As for Sigmund Freud, his critiques of religion, in particular Christianity, are well known and will be discussed in some detail later. For now, it is enough to remember how deeply involved Freud and his thought have been with the question of God and religion. Given the close involvement between the founding of much of psychology and a critical interpretation of religion, it should not be surprising that most psychologists view with some alarm any attempt to propose a psychology of atheism. At the very least such a project puts many psychologists on the defensive and gives them some taste of their own medicine. Psychologists are always observing and interpreting others and it is high time that some of them learn from their own personal experience what it is like to be put under the microscope of psychological theory and experiment. Regardless, I hope to show that the psychological concepts used quite effectively to interpret religion are two- edged swords that can also be used to interpret atheism. Sauce for the believer is equally sauce for the unbeliever. Before beginning, however, I wish to make two points bearing on the underlying assumption of my remarks. First, I assume that the major barriers to belief in God are not rational but-in a general sense- can be called psychological. I do not wish to offend the many distinguished philosophers-both believers and nonbelievers-in this audience, but I am quite convinced that for every person strongly swayed by rational argument there are many, many more affected by nonrational psychological factors. The human heart-no one can truly fathom it or know all its deceits, but at least it is the proper task of the psychologist to try. Thus, to begin, I propose that neurotic psychological barriers to belief in God are of great importance. What some of these might be I will mention shortly. For believers, therefore, it is important to keep in mind that psychological motives and pressures that one is often unaware of, often lie behind unbelief. http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html
I'm not disputing the mayo study. I'm disputing how you are using the result of the mayo study. What part of that do you not understand? You know why there's the scientific method right? because common sense isn't always right. Morever, you are hardly demonstrating common sense. I'm also not suggesting the good dr's theory is invalid. I am, however, asking for his evidence as published in a peer reviewed mainstream journal. I'm done arguing over the basic fundamental rules of logic. I can't win this fight. I'll comment when/if you post actual false negative and false positive data for the doctor's study. Otherwise, there's little to talk about.
So you are not disputing the Mayo study. Good for you. Common sense is not always right, but in common living it is usually right. I'll take it over Ivory tower shit any day. If you have questions for Dr. Vick and his work, why don't you ask him? Dr. Vitz may be contacted at NYU as follows: NYU Department of Psychology Washington Place, Room 579 New York, NY 10003 email: vitz@psych.nyu.edu Asking me to speak for Dr. Vitz or provide the specifics of his study is not common sense.