The Dawkins experiment

2
260

Yesterday (28.12.2007) I decided to do The Dawkins experiment
You might not see it as an experiment, but I call it like that, because if you set plan for research and study on a subject you are actually experimenting.
Do and observe.

So, what was the experiment?
I simply opened a topic in Richard Dawkins website forum
My intent was to examen the thinking and logical capability of the atheists.
I wanted to see if there is any difference between religious and atheist behavior in a discussion.
It is interesting to see how the EGO reacts when is flatter or insulted.
When EGO feels flattered and when insulted?
And again – what is the difference between religious believer and atheist believer.
Yes they both are believers and we know it very well.

A week ago I had a conversation on “Freedom” with Freemasons on Facebook.
You won’t believe it but after I offered my understanding that Freedom is lack of desire they just deleted the topic.
There was no offense or bad language from my side.
It was the way I brought them to the idea and made it irrefutable.
Their EGO broke.

The same happened with Dawkins friends.
Well the topic is not deleted.
It reached 273 answers in two days.
Most of them of course troll sounding, but some of them with serious attempts to defend the atheist belief.

A very interesting result from the experiment is that although atheists claim that religions are creating disrespect between people, based on religious belief, they are more aggressive and disrespectable than any religious opponents.
They fail to prove that atheist are better communicators and community partners.

I hoped that atheists, putting their belief on science will show higher intellectual level and logical capabilities.
Not at all.
Most of them are religiously defending their belief with the primitive request “Prove it”.
If you give them prove they dismiss it not with arguments but with accusations.

[Example]

Humans moral values are first recorded as enforced by God rules in the scriptures talking about God.
Humans accepted the rules but did not accept God who gave the rules.
The world is living under the moral values of God without recognizing (accepting) God.

This is “argued” with the accusation that the one who wrote the rules did lie that they come from God.

Any way, you can read the discussion for yourself.

I have to admit that I used “dirty” ego techniques.
They worked like they do with 99% of the people regardless their belief.
When you address them with “my friend” they take it as a patronizing.
If you argue their statement and make it indefensible with the first strike, they lose their ability to move on to another field of the discussion. The EGO wants victory before moving forward. EGO can not move on other rails but on its own.
They use sarcasm but when you use it on them they warn you with ban.

Twisting meanings is the best defence of the weak person.
Atheists use it all the time.

I gave three simple points as base for God’s existence.

1) Humans moral values are given (first records) in scriptures stating “God exist”. They were given to the humans as enforced law from God. It is not serious to argue it with “they did lie about God, to make humans obey the law”. Your arguments can not be based on assumptions.

2) The scientific impotence to prove present moment makes any material based request irrelevant in connection with God existence. It unfolds endless field for discussing the material observation as a conscious delusion.

3) It is against the Logic to hold the statement “God does not exist”. Such statement has no logical end, while “God exist” eventually (theoretically) goes to an end. In other words, existence can be proved by observation, while none existence can not be proved – there is always possibility for existence.

Three points, based on historical facts, science and logic.
None of them was refuted. Instead they defined them as “preaching”.

In the Psychology text book can be found the explanation that humans tend to like other humans by intellectuality along with all the other signs.
But(!) humans don’t like people that are far more intelligent or perfect.
They feel uncomfortable in the presence of such people.

I found out that they not only feel uncomfortable, but become highly aggressive, mentally unstable and openly manifesting their dislike.
That fully applies to Freemasons and atheists.

Unexpectedly for some of you, religious people are dealing away better with their EGO when meeting person with higher intellectual level.
Their belief in God gives them a moral value which covers the intellectual gap and comforts the EGO.

I observed many interesting psychological and intellectual issues in my experiment, but the most surprising for me was the intellectual impotence of the atheists to differentiate between belief and knowledge

Atheists like most religious people don’t really understand the idea of God.
Religious people are imagining God in as many ways as atheists use to reject Him.
Presenting new explanation about God meets the same nonacceptance in both groups.

2 COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here