People claiming "personal" surety of gods existance.

checkyabadself

patrickk wrote: »

I had some experiences which and still do assured me of existence of God and Our Lady and how they bring about healing in our lives.

Having heard claims like this today and quite a few more recently, I`m interested in the psychology behind making claims that "I personally have had it proven to me that god exists by experience" which are often kept private.

It seems strange that some people, smugly claim to be privvy to something that the rest of even their fellow believers are not. I`m intrigued by this train of thought that I`m noticing of late and am curious as to whether there`s some further reading on the subject ?

If anyone has a book/link to check out it`d be great.

Thanks,
Will.

nozzferrahhtoo

The issue for me with these claims, is that the people claiming them are unwilling or unable to describe to me a mechanism to differentiate between their claims, and the claims of people who are personally assured that they were abducted by aliens, ort hat they are Napoleon reincarnated.

People actually get personally offended when you do not just accept their personal assurances as to the truth of the religious claims.

Yet they would stand right by you in rejecting the personal assurances of the claims of Hindus, alien abductees and reincarnates.

So if they can so wantonly reject the claims of others, while expecting others to accept their own… then surely they are aware of SOME mechanism by which to distinguish. Why they are so adamant about NOT sharing that mechanism is… for me… suspect in the extreme.

Galvasean

Having a 'personal experience with God' or what have you is just a kop out way of not having to back up one's BS.

zoomtard

Fundamentally though, it is our personal experience of not encountering any particular deity that leads us to believe that they are not real. Why is the inevitability of personal narrative shaping our worldview only a problem when it shapes it positively?

robindch

zoomtard wrote: »

Fundamentally though, it is our personal experience of not encountering any particular deity that leads us to believe that they are not real.

Chaplain Outs Self As Atheist Shocker!

checkyabadself

Galvasean wrote: »

Having a 'personal experience with God' or what have you is just a kop out way of not having to back up one's BS.

I agree with you, but my point was that these people genuinely dont seem to be lying or BS-ing. They seem convinced and it`s that eh...logic, that I`m curious about.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris dont really seem to touch on it. I`m wondering does the mind have a capability of manifesting an entire reassurance mechanism to those desperate for something to be true. A kind of science of wishful thinking, if you will...

28064212

zoomtard wrote: »

Fundamentally though, it is our personal experience of not encountering any particular deity that leads us to believe that they are not real.

...What? That is certainly not true of the large majority of athiests. That's akin to saying I don't believe in penguins because I've never seen one. Personal experience comes into almost no athiests' arguments.

Or do you mean "our personal experience" in the global sense? If so, why is there any reason for believing one particular deity over another? or over aliens? Or leprachauns? I'm pretty sure I can find examples of people claiming 'personal experience' of encountering those too

zoomtard

28064212 wrote: »

...What? That is certainly not true of the large majority of athiests. That's akin to saying I don't believe in penguins because I've never seen one. Personal experience comes into almost no athiests' arguments.

Or do you mean "our personal experience" in the global sense? If so, why is there any reason for believing one particular deity over another? or over aliens? Or leprachauns? I'm pretty sure I can find examples of people claiming 'personal experience' of encountering those too

The question of the existence of God or the validity of dharma or name-your-global-faith-tradition-here is utterly unlike the existence of penguins. To suggest it is is simply to suggest you don't quite comprehend what Jews or Buddhists are proposing about reality.

Whether or not personal experience comes into the explicit content of atheist argument, personal narrative does shape the worldview. None of us have managed what Kant failed and arrived at our destination by pure reason.

In plain terms lads, belief that any specific faith tradition is not true would be tested were we to experience a certain set of encounters that could not be accounted for within our previous life experience, could not be attributed to mental or emotional difficulties expressing themselves psychotically and that did fit within the logic system proposed by that specific faith tradition.

Now, convincing any one else to believe on the basis of your personal experience would be a tough sell. But there is no logical reason to discount narrative formation when it expresses itself positively when we accept it if it is negative.

And Robin, I never said I was an atheist. I simply accepted a point you often used to make to me before the great Boards.ie crash (back when I still had access to the "Excelsior" username) that by believing in the Trinity I am implicitly believing in the non-validity of countless gods.

28064212

zoomtard wrote: »

The question of the existence of God or the validity of dharma or name-your-global-faith-tradition-here is utterly unlike the existence of penguins. To suggest it is is simply to suggest you don't quite comprehend what Jews or Buddhists are proposing about reality.

You stated that personal experience is the reasoning behind athiest's arguments, when it is most certainly not.

zoomtard wrote: »

Now, convincing any one else to believe on the basis of your personal experience would be a tough sell. But there is no logical reason to discount narrative formation when it expresses itself positively when we accept it if it is negative.

Except that's not what athiests do (most of them anyway). Athiests are not accepting either sides of a personal narrative debate. The opposite of someone claiming personal narrative of a deity is not not claiming personal experience, it's claiming that your personal narrative guarantees something else. Those are the two sides to the coin, and athiests dismiss both sides as irrelevant

Zillah

It is an unpopular truth that religious people are, for all intents and purposes, insane.

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

It is an unpopular truth that religious people are, for all intents and purposes, insane.

If you look at some of the thingd the religious say it is quite clear that were they not said about a personal religion they would be considered mental.

Talking about an invisible being with superpowers revealing himself to you, and only you mind, and talking to you is a sure sign of being a mentler. Unless of course that invisible being happens to be god, then it is OK. Obviously it has to be your god, all those other people that get visits from other gods are obviously mental. Or maybe satan is misleading them, I can never remember.

MrP

zoomtard

28064212 wrote: »

Except that's not what athiests do

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

Some might, some probably don't.
Atheism is a single position on a single topic, namely a lack in a belief in Gods.
That's the only thing Atheists are guaranteed to have in common.

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by "personal narrative"? While you're at it, could you explain why your personal narrative involves lying to people on the internet about your beliefs? Is insidious duplicity part of your personal narrative? You sure you're not a Catholic? Cos that's kind of their thing these days.

checkyabadself

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

I have an innate sense of morality and can identify with the golden rule school of thought, I wouldn`t call it a personal narrative though.

As for the "do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?"...........what was your opinion, before you found god?

28064212

zoomtard wrote: »

Clarify something for me. It may have changed since I found God, but do atheists have a personal narrative that influences their worldview?

Zillah wrote: »

Could you clarify what exactly you mean by "personal narrative"?

^-- This. Your definition seems to jump around

zoomtard

28064212 wrote: »

^-- This. Your definition seems to jump around

I was an atheist before I was a Christian.

My definition can't jump around if it hasn't been offered yet, can it?

Personal narrative is just that, a plain and commonly used phrase meaning an understanding of your self identity over time.

The reason I ask this question and my initial comment in this thread was not to inherently dispute with the general thrust (that "personal" surety is very unconvincing) but to query the way in which we sometimes can think that we have arrived at our views without the heavy influence of our own personal experiences (and our reflections thereon, which together adds up to a narrative).

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

I was an atheist before I was a Christian.

My definition can't jump around if it hasn't been offered yet, can it?

Personal narrative is just that, a plain and commonly used phrase meaning an understanding of your self identity over time.

The reason I ask this question and my initial comment in this thread was not to inherently dispute with the general thrust (that "personal" surety is very unconvincing) but to query the way in which we sometimes can think that we have arrived at our views without the heavy influence of our own personal experiences (and our reflections thereon, which together adds up to a narrative).

My atheism is based on the fact that there is no empirical evidence that God exists.
Can you please explain how this fact can be altered by personal experience?

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

My atheism is based on the fact that there is no empirical evidence that God exists.
Can you please explain how this fact can be altered by personal experience?

Sure! It need be no more complex than this:

Precision in your sentence would demand it to be written as "My atheism is based on the fact that I am unaware of any empirical evidence that God exists."

There is no empirical evidence for God, to the best of my knowledge. I am not disputing that. But even the idea that you would consider empirical evidence a useful category with which to respond to the God question testifies to your personal setting in a particular locale and context and era.

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

Sure! It need be no more complex than this:

Precision in your sentence would demand it to be written as "My atheism is based on the fact that I am unaware of any empirical evidence that God exists."

There is no empirical evidence for God, to the best of my knowledge.

So again, my stance that there is no empirical evidence for God, remains unassailed.

I fail to see how personal experiences can alter this, when personal experience cannot be empirical evidence.

zoomtard wrote: »

I am not disputing that. But even the idea that you would consider empirical evidence a useful category with which to respond to the God question testifies to your personal setting in a particular locale and context and era.

Not following.
Can you please explain what you are talking about?

amacachi

I love the born agains who find God during/after a mentally traumatic episode or occurrence. I'm not going to bother explaining why. :pac:

MikeC101

amacachi wrote: »

I love the born agains who find God during/after a mentally traumatic episode or occurrence. I'm not going to bother explaining why. :pac:

I like the ones who were not only atheists before they "found" god (where was the fecker, hiding in the closet again?), but they claim they were even more atheist than the most atheist of atheists on the atheism forum. In fact they were the biggest atheist in the WORLD, far more of an atheist than YOU, but they found the light.

In itself there's a miscomprehension of atheism at work there, but it's the condescending "there's hope for you yet" combined with the "some day you'll open your eyes to the love of GOD" attitude that really makes me laugh.

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

So again, my stance that there is no empirical evidence for God, remains unassailed.

And my claim that there is very little that juggling cornflakes can do to assist in the autopsy of rabbits is also seemingly invulnerable to challenge.

KingMob wrote:

I fail to see how personal experiences can alter this, when personal experience cannot be empirical evidence.

Right. I agree. But how did you decide that empirical evidence would be a good standard by which to evaluate the existence of God. This view wouldn't have occurred to you were raised in the deserts of Algeria in the 19th Century, in the centre of Budapest in the late 1800s or the leafy suburbs of Dublin in the home of a systematic theologian today.

That it did occur is a function of your life experience. You assessed it within a framework marked out by your life experience and all I am trying to suggest (which is really a very small thing) is that personal experience is always operative in how we come to our conclusions (not just when we are acting irrationally).

checkyabadself

amacachi wrote: »

I love the born agains who find God during/after a mentally traumatic episode or occurrence. I'm not going to bother explaining why. :pac:

I find them to be pathetic. Pathetic in the unfortunate sense. They never seem to give themselves any credit for getting through/over the struggle/heartache that caused them to seek and later reward god for.

mikhail

zoomtard wrote: »

And my claim that there is very little that juggling cornflakes can do to assist in the autopsy of rabbits is also seemingly invulnerable to challenge.

For a moment there, I thought I was reading an atheist's post. That's a fine piece of sophistry there. I'll join you in not believing in the efficacy of cornflake-juggling rabbit coroners, and other such unlikely things, until I have reason to.

But how did you decide that empirical evidence would be a good standard by which to evaluate the existence of God. This view wouldn't have occurred to you were raised in the deserts of Algeria in the 18th Century, in the centre of Budapest in the late 1800s or the leafy suburbs of Dublin in the home of a systematic theologian today.

Ignorance or indoctrination would have retarded his ability to form a cogent thought? Wow.

zoomtard

mikhail wrote: »

For a moment there, I thought I was reading an atheist's post. That's a fine piece of sophistry there. I'll join you in not believing in the efficacy of cornflake-juggling rabbit coroners, and other such unlikely things, until I have reason to.


Ignorance or indoctrination would have retarded his ability to form a cogent thought? Wow.

In Algeria in the 19th Century there would have been the curious culture clash of a post-revolutionary, post-Napoleonic secular republic colonising a territory that had its own rich, divergent intellectual tradition.

In the late 1800s in Budapest, the chemist, economist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi was born.

And in contemporary Dublin, actual Christians (as against scary God-TV types we see on documentaries) in my actual experience (which of course does not amount to an empirical argument but such a standard would render the possibility of "social sciences" irrelevant anyway) very rarely demonstrate the kind of "indoctrination" that is taken as a given in settings such as this.

I actually chose those examples with a bit of care to avoid any simple "indoctrination and ignorance" responses. Your point is totally valid, but it misses mine.

Another way to put what I am saying is to quote Marx and his old adage that context creates consciousness. "Reason" is not some Platonic form floating out in the sky somewhere but is subject to change (as evidenced by even a brief examination of Plato!). Our personal experience and reflections on that experience feed into the conclusions that we make.

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

And my claim that there is very little that juggling cornflakes can do to assist in the autopsy of rabbits is also seemingly invulnerable to challenge.

So special pleading then?

zoomtard wrote: »

Right. I agree. But how did you decide that empirical evidence would be a good standard by which to evaluate the existence of God.

Because there has been no other way of evaluating truth that has been shown to be as accurate.

zoomtard wrote: »

This view wouldn't have occurred to you were raised in the deserts of Algeria in the 19th Century, in the centre of Budapest in the late 1800s or the leafy suburbs of Dublin in the home of a systematic theologian today.

Nope, but doesn't impact it's validity.

zoomtard wrote: »

That it did occur is a function of your life experience. You assessed it within a framework marked out by your life experience and all I am trying to suggest (which is really a very small thing) is that personal experience is always operative in how we come to our conclusions (not just when we are acting irrationally).

I'm stating facts here, there's nothing in my personal experiences that alters these facts.
I can demonstrate them as facts or at least point out peoples failed attempts to offer bad evidence and reasoning.

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

So special pleading then?

Oh lordie, what does a saint have to do to get these atheists to crack a smile?

King Mob wrote: »

Because there has been no other way of evaluating truth that has been shown to be as accurate.

Your conclusion, as stated above (which is actually fairly sound as such things go and I don't have any real quibble with it) was still arrived at by means other than pure reason. Hence, context, namely your context which amounts to your self-narrative, in some senses shaped and informed this conclusion. This is a minimal claim approaching tautology that I am presenting that in no way hinders or disputes atheism. You are allowed to admit that you are not just an experimentation machine.

KingMob wrote:

Nope, but doesn't impact it's validity.

I am not disputing its validity! Its like you guys can't even imagine that there is any over-lap between theism and atheism and everything has to be a battle. I am not disputing validity. I am merely suggesting that the conclusion is shaped by personal experience (in a way similar to but different from the personal experiences of religious people that lead to their conclusions).

KingMob wrote:

I'm stating facts here, there's nothing in my personal experiences that alters these facts.
I can demonstrate them as facts or at least point out peoples failed attempts to offer bad evidence and reasoning.

It is perhaps a fact that you believe these things. Facts facts facts, so close to truth and so capable of obscuring it.

mikhail

zoomtard wrote: »

... I am merely suggesting that the conclusion is shaped by personal experience (in a way similar to but different from the personal experiences of religious people that lead to their conclusions).

I think your little 'insight' is trite; about as meaningful as arguing that as humans, we're as fallible as the next person.

MrPudding

checkyabadself wrote: »

I find them to be pathetic. Pathetic in the unfortunate sense. They never seem to give themselves any credit for getting through/over the struggle/heartache that caused them to seek and later reward god for.

I genuinely love to hear that people have turned their lives around. I love a good bad boy turned good / success in the face of adversity, but it saddens we when people can't see who was actually responsible.

And another thing, it fcuks me right off when <INSERT DEITY HERE> get thanked for the miracle which saved a babies life rather than the medical team that stood for 14 hours up to their elbows in the kids vital organs trying to fix whatever was wrong.

MrP

zoomtard

The question occurs: why would such an allegedly trite observation illicit such a response?

Tautologies can often be mistaken as trite, but they are rarely objected to by people who raise up reason as their, well, raison d'etre.

From where I am sitting, it is uncomfortable to acknowledge tacit knowledge if we are also trying to scoff at someone's claim from experience because it very rapidly cuts you off from the intellectual high ground.

In response to so brilliant a defence of the role of plausibility structures as I myself offered, you now disparage it as meaningless.

My basic point, as trite as it may be is this: The personal experience of a convert can offer legitimate grounds for drawing a conclusion, while being utterly unconvincing as an argument to others without pre-existing bonds of trust in relationship. However, personal experience informs conclusion formation in all cases, whether that conclusion is rational or irrational. This is an example of the impossibility of any particular human being exercising pure reason which is a common myth proposed and accepted in contemporary discourse.

Voilà! I'll now take my banalities elsewhere and will trouble you no more...

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

Oh lordie, what does a saint have to do to get these atheists to crack a smile?

Seems awful like you were trying to make a fallacy of special pleading there.

zoomtard wrote: »

Your conclusion, as stated above (which is actually fairly sound as such things go and I don't have any real quibble with it) was still arrived at by means other than pure reason. Hence, context, namely your context which amounts to your self-narrative, in some senses shaped and informed this conclusion. This is a minimal claim approaching tautology that I am presenting that in no way hinders or disputes atheism. You are allowed to admit that you are not just an experimentation machine.

I am not disputing its validity! Its like you guys can't even imagine that there is any over-lap between theism and atheism and everything has to be a battle. I am not disputing validity. I am merely suggesting that the conclusion is shaped by personal experience (in a way similar to but different from the personal experiences of religious people that lead to their conclusions).

Nope. my conclusion is based and shaped purely by reason.
my personal experiences don't really factor in.

zoomtard wrote: »

It is perhaps a fact that you believe these things. Facts facts facts, so close to truth and so capable of obscuring it.

No they're facts.

zoomtard

zoomtard wrote: »

The question occurs: why would such an allegedly trite observation illicit such a response?

Does it elicit an illicit response?

zoomtard

Zing.

I hang my head in incomprehsame. That is when you are shamed over how incomprehensible you are.

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

In Algeria in the 19th Century there would have been the curious culture clash of a post-revolutionary, post-Napoleonic secular republic colonising a territory that had its own rich, divergent intellectual tradition.

In the late 1800s in Budapest, the chemist, economist and philosopher, Michael Polanyi was born.

And in contemporary Dublin, actual Christians (as against scary God-TV types we see on documentaries) in my actual experience (which of course does not amount to an empirical argument but such a standard would render the possibility of "social sciences" irrelevant anyway) very rarely demonstrate the kind of "indoctrination" that is taken as a given in settings such as this.

I actually chose those examples with a bit of care to avoid any simple "indoctrination and ignorance" responses. Your point is totally valid, but it misses mine.

Another way to put what I am saying is to quote Marx and his old adage that context creates consciousness. "Reason" is not some Platonic form floating out in the sky somewhere but is subject to change (as evidenced by even a brief examination of Plato!). Our personal experience and reflections on that experience feed into the conclusions that we make.

Yah yah yah blah blah blah lots of people think in a retarded fashion that is different to how we think. Our paradigm (one of scepticism and evidence based belief) is the only one to have put satellites in orbit, decoded the human genome and eradicated small pox. You theists had millenia of control over human civilisation and all you achieved was to culminate in a period rather generously described as the Dark Ages.

Not all world views are equal. Yours is dumb. That sucks for you but no degree of equivocation or dishonesty on your part will change that.

Speaking of dishonesty, you didn't answer my question from earlier: Why did you lie at the start? Lying is a sin, no?

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

Seems awful like you were trying to make a fallacy of special pleading there.

Is there a way to depict deep sighing with these emoticons? I can offer you no empirical evidence that my claim that I believe juggling cornflakes and rabbit post-mortems to be unrelated topics has defeated any prospective challenge so it is consistent that you dispute it as special pleading but I can only implore you to accept my personal testimony, which I realise is worthy only of being mocked for that is what would happen were I to tell you of my encounters with God, that it was an attempt at humour.

Ain't no way to make a Christian feel sh!te quite like having some jokes fall flat amongst his new internet atheist friends.

KingMob wrote:

Nope. my conclusion is based and shaped purely by reason.
my personal experiences don't really factor in.

No they're facts.

These are simply mind-boggling claims, all the more impressive seeing as my trite "insight" can simultaneously elicit (thanks Bluewolf) apathetic dismissal from one poster and utter repudiation from you.

28064212

zoomtard wrote: »

My basic point, as trite as it may be is this: The personal experience of a convert can offer legitimate grounds for drawing a conclusion, while being utterly unconvincing as an argument to others without pre-existing bonds of trust in relationship. However, personal experience informs conclusion formation in all cases, whether that conclusion is rational or irrational. This is an example of the impossibility of any particular human being exercising pure reason which is a common myth proposed and accepted in contemporary discourse.

You are correct, in that of course all human reasoning is based on personal experience. That's because there is no other way to take in information. It's what you do with the information that actually matters. And you already highlighted the vital differentiation, rational vs irrational. Science is rational, religious 'enlightenment' is not.

If you personally experience gravity and be shown that it works and to view it working identically in all situations and you understand it, it is rational to 'believe' in gravity. If you have a religious experience, which happens to you personally, and you are shown that identical effects can be reproduced via psychosis, and you reject other people's experiences which are identical but not in agreement with yours, and yet you still believe yours to be somehow different, then you are irrational.

zoomtard

Zillah wrote: »

Yah yah yah blah blah blah lots of people think in a retarded fashion that is different to how we think. Our paradigm (one of scepticism and evidence based belief) is the only one to have put satellites in orbit, decoded the human genome and eradicated small pox. You theists had millenia of control over human civilisation and all you achieved was to culminate in a period rather generously described as the Dark Ages.

When someone writes "Yah yah yah blah blah blah" that is another way of putting their hands over their ears and saying "Nyah nyah nyah nyah I'm not listening" which is a common response from kids when they face arguments they don't like but can't defeat. Your paradigm, scepticism and evidence based belief is shared by most every Christian I know (and myself!). I am not against the Enlightenment project and no historian could ever side with your suggestion that somehow scientific advancement has occurred against Christianity. Come on lads!

Also, as an aside, the Dark Ages were actually really quite brilliant too, especially in Ireland. But anyway... your whole paragraph is silly, and doesn't really take me seriously, does it?

Zillah wrote:

Not all world views are equal. Yours is dumb. That sucks for you but no degree of equivocation or dishonesty on your part will change that.

I don't think all world views are equal. But all world views are actually held by individual people. They don't exist outside of people in general. And these people reach these world view convictions in part because of experience.

For the sake of clarity, I think atheism is the most noble of world views or philosophies (outside of following the path forged by that pale Gallilean of course!) and have practically committed this section by Slavoj Zizek to memory:

"During the Seventh Crusade, led by St. Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full of fire in her right hand and a bowl full of water in her left hand. Asked why she carried the two bowls, she answered that with the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of it, and with the water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: “Because I want no one to do good in order to receive the reward of Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love for God.” Today, this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism."

Zillah wrote:

Speaking of dishonesty, you didn't answer my question from earlier: Why did you lie at the start? Lying is a sin, no?

There is no lie. There is only assumption on your side. I wrote:

Zoomtard wrote:

Fundamentally though, it is our personal experience of not encountering any particular deity that leads us to believe that they are not real. Why is the inevitability of personal narrative shaping our worldview only a problem when it shapes it positively?

I do not believe in Thor or the free market or Ganeesh or any number of other entities worshipped around the globe and the primary reason why I do not believe in them is because I have never encountered them myself, in my own personal experience, doing what they are claimed to be able to do.

I believe I have encountered the Trinitarian God in a fashion that validates claims about the Trinitarian God (note KingMob that this is still couched in belief and does not amount to "fact") and that is the primary reason why I am a believer in the existence and much more interestingly, immanence of this God. I continue to not believe any particular deity with whom I have not had a personal encounter, in a large part because I have not had a personal encounter with them. Those personal convictions are irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

Is there a way to depict deep sighing with these emoticons? I can offer you no empirical evidence that my claim that I believe juggling cornflakes and rabbit post-mortems to be unrelated topics has defeated any prospective challenge so it is consistent that you dispute it as special pleading but I can only implore you to accept my personal testimony, which I realise is worthy only of being mocked for that is what would happen were I to tell you of my encounters with God, that it was an attempt at humour.

Ain't no way to make a Christian feel sh!te quite like having some jokes fall flat amongst his new internet atheist friends.

It seemed like you where trying to make the point that empiricism couldn't apply to the existance of God.
This fallacious argument is basically special pleading.

zoomtard wrote: »

These are simply mind-boggling claims, all the more impressive seeing as my trite "insight" can simultaneously elicit (thanks Bluewolf) apathetic dismissal from one poster and utter repudiation from you.

Well again, empiricism is the best system we have for obtaining accurate knowledge.
The progress of science using the scientific method attests to this.
Can you provide an example of a system that is as good or better?

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, which you've already said you can't dispute because you cannot provide any.
And since you cannot provide any empirical evidence that God exists, your belief must arise from some other type of reasoning.
No other religion ever has put forward an argument for the existence of god that can stand up to basic scrutiny.
No religion has ever had a doctrine espousing empirical reasoning for the existence of god, instead praising flawed and reliable methods of reasoning.

And no, nothing in my personal experiences influences how I draw these conclusions. Just cold hard facts.

zoomtard

28064212 wrote: »

You are correct, in that of course all human reasoning is based on personal experience. That's because there is no other way to take in information. It's what you do with the information that actually matters. And you already highlighted the vital differentiation, rational vs irrational. Science is rational, religious 'enlightenment' is not.

Ok. I get where this comes from, I think and I think I mostly agree. But reason is hereby defined too narrowly in part because "religious" isn't defined at all. Religion doesn't exist in general. There is no grand unifying theory. And while I have sympathy with the thrust of your argument, I do think that if we were debating with friends over a pint (the ultimate arena!) you'd have to role back on your blanket "Science is rational, religious 'enlightenment' is not." contrast statement pretty rapidly. For one: Lots of science, for example in atomic physics, is patently arational, counter to Western post-Enlightenment reason and yet utterly compelling from an empirical basis. Secondly: does religious enlightenment extend to Larkin's "Water" which makes claims to religious enlightenment and yet is rational in some sense of the word.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am just trying to point out that there may be more complexity in this than sometimes is acknowledged.

28064212 wrote:

If you personally experience gravity and be shown that it works and to view it working identically in all situations and you understand it, it is rational to 'believe' in gravity. If you have a religious experience, which happens to you personally, and you are shown that identical effects can be reproduced via psychosis, and you reject other people's experiences which are identical but not in agreement with yours, and yet you still believe yours to be somehow different, then you are irrational.

Totally true. Within limits. But you are making an assumption that is cognitively in error. And that leaves lots of stuff outside the boundaries of your theory's explanatory power, to try to scientrify my language!

Religion is not a big box that you can drop every claim from faith traditions into so as to mingle. A claim from a monotheistic tradition is of an epistemically different order to that from a non-theistic karmic system. Perhaps it would be helpful to imagine these distinct traditions as language systems; that way you can engage them as they are without lending them any truth credibility. But the grammar of Buddhism is fundamentally different to the grammar of Judaism thus that comparing phenomena experienced within one with the other is equivalent to saying that if you didn't enjoy soccer you are bound to not enjoy rugby.

I made that analogy up as I typed so it might be genius or it might be, well, trite, but give it a turn around in your mind graciously and see if it works.

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

When someone writes "Yah yah yah blah blah blah" that is another way of putting their hands over their ears and saying "Nyah nyah nyah nyah I'm not listening" which is a common response from kids when they face arguments they don't like but can't defeat.

No not really. It is an expression of disdain rather than 'I'm not listening!'

Your paradigm, scepticism and evidence based belief is shared by most every Christian I know (and myself!).

But of course! Except in the thousands of preposterous claims that constitute the Christian world view. You only have a sceptical and evidence based worldview if you consistently apply it. You apply it most of the time, but then either because you're crazy, brainwashed or just really want to believe something you throw it all side when it comes to the ancient fairytales in a Hebrew book.

"Goats are actually aliens" -- uuuhh no I don't think so
"Your wife is a zombie!" -- no I doubt it
"Jesus was the magic son of a tri-fold God who can walk on water and was sent to earth to sacrifice himself to himself so that he can forgive us for a crime in an allegorical story written thousands of years ago by persons unknown" -- Why yes that's perfectly reasonable!

I believe I have encountered the Trinitarian God in a fashion that validates claims about the Trinitarian God

Can you define what exactly you mean by an "encounter"? I assume we're not talking about God showing up every Sunday for a chat. Don't you find it strange that God only 'encounters' people inside their own heads, which is the exact place that hallucinations 'encounter' people? Have you encountered literature on the nature of delusions or confirmation bias?

Goduznt Xzst

zoomtard wrote: »

This is an example of the impossibility of any particular human being exercising pure reason which is a common myth proposed and accepted in contemporary discourse.

You haven't found existential nihilism yet I gather.

What you are doing, and it's a common religious piece of reductio ad absurdum, is trying to equate your belief in a theistic universe where God interfers obviously in your life, leading you to notice his/her/its influence over your existence to another individual who accepts something like; the Earth orbits the Sun even though they have never personally empirically proven it to themselves. It's absurd.

You'll find most atheists reject beliefs and superstitions based on their relevance. I believe the brakes in my car will work the next time I use them because it is relevant to my existence. I don't believe a theistic deity exists because it is irrelevant to my existence.

You'll also find that any subjective beliefs a Atheist may hold can easily be changed once empirical evidence is provided to disprove them. The same can not be said of your faith.

Like our lord and saviour, Richard Dawkins, says:

"Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence."

So Say We All

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

It seemed like you where trying to make the point that empiricism couldn't apply to the existance of God.
This fallacious argument is basically special pleading.

Well it would be special pleading if empiricism was applied to all claims to truth. It isn't, so it wouldn't be. But it was a 100% effort to be funny and introduce some levity into proceedings because I feel awfully intimidated taking on a whole team of atheists.

KingMob wrote:

Well again, empiricism is the best system we have for obtaining accurate knowledge.
The progress of science using the scientific method attests to this.
Can you provide an example of a system that is as good or better?

I wholeheartedly embrace empiricism when I need my broken arm fixed or when I need my coffee beans ground down. But I don't/can't turn to empiricism when I seek different kinds of knowledge which are also essential to life such as how it feels for people who don't have full use of their body or how a sunny Saturday morning can possibly improved. I must turn to conversation or novels or the experience of breaking both my arms in the first case and the tasting of a well drawn espresso in the second.

Such illustrations often get rejected when debating online because it so easily becomes an ego battle where we want to prove the other person wrong but they are no doubt valuable forms of knowledge that cannot be acquired empirically.

I must repeat though: I am not against science or scepticism.

KingMob wrote:

There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, which you've already said you can't dispute because you cannot provide any.
And since you cannot provide any empirical evidence that God exists, your belief must arise from some other type of reasoning.

One of my great heroes was the German resistance leader, poet, theologian and martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He said, "A god that could be proved would be an idol". There is much fruitful thought to be had in that.

KingMob wrote:

No other religion ever has put forward an argument for the existence of god that can stand up to basic scrutiny.
No religion has ever had a doctrine espousing empirical reasoning for the existence of god, instead praising flawed and reliable methods of reasoning.

I am not that big a fan of religion in general and do not aim to defend them here. Nor, for that sake, do I am to defend Christianity either. I am not here to convince anyone of anything to do with the Trinity.

KingMob wrote:

And no, nothing in my personal experiences influences how I draw these conclusions. Just cold hard facts.

Let me state what I think of this clearly in case I have failed utterly to communicate clearly (which is my habit!):

I agree that it is a cold hard fact (in some non-empirical use of fact) that you believe in no gods. But the truth veracity of that claim is simply not a fact.

Zillah

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

So Say We All

So Say We All.

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

So Say We All.

x10

zoomtard

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You haven't found existential nihilism yet I gather.

I think it gives existentialism a bad name

Goduznt Xzst wrote:

What you are doing, and it's a common religious piece of reductio ad absurdum, is trying to equate your belief in a theistic universe where God interfers obviously in your life, leading you to notice his/her/its influence over your existence to another individual who accepts something like; the Earth orbits the Sun even though they have never personally empirically proven it to themselves. It's absurd.

I am not actually. I am trying to desperately have a conversation about personal experience, specifically as it relates to the way in which it is viable if it concludes in negative positions but worthy of scathing "disdain" if it informs positive positions. I have not raised and am uninterested in defending my personal Christian convictions.

You'll find most atheists reject beliefs and superstitions based on their relevance. I believe the brakes in my car will work the next time I use them because it is relevant to my existence. I don't believe a theistic deity exists because it is irrelevant to my existence.

Exactly! You have basically admitted the point. Your definition of relevance is inextricably tied up in personal experience. If you have never experienced automotive travel, then the proper functioning of brakes is less likely to bear upon you. Hence, personal experience informs to some (varying) degrees every conclusion whether rational or irrational.

You'll also find that any subjective beliefs a Atheist may hold can easily be changed once empirical evidence is provided to disprove them. The same can not be said of your faith.

One of these days I'll write that paper on how conversionism actually is a framework by which the communitarian identity can embrace the full benefits of self reflexivity which is another way of saying, if I have been "converted", for want of a better word, that leaves me in the epistemically attractive position of having once already admitted I was in the wrong. That should be the surest ground upon which I critically assess new inputs in the sure and certain knowledge (from personal experience) that I may still be in the wrong. That you rarely find this amongst Christians is disappointing. That you as someone striving to be rational, fair and open-minded, would conclude this about me without even the barest of biography, (lacking such relevant information as what denomination I am a member of etc) is perhaps inconsistent.

zoomtard

Zillah wrote: »

No not really. It is an expression of disdain rather than 'I'm not listening!'

Irrational prejudice is somewhat neutered when it is exposed. So much easier when it is self-exposed. So thanks.

Zillah wrote:

You only have a sceptical and evidence based worldview if you consistently apply it. You apply it most of the time, but then either because you're crazy, brainwashed or just really want to believe something you throw it all side when it comes to the ancient fairytales in a Hebrew book.

Are you applying your scepticism rationally when you assuming that I am worthy only of disdain because I avidly and carefully read a book written in Hebrew (and Greek and an Aramaic derivative)?

Zillah wrote:

Can you define what exactly you mean by an "encounter"? I assume we're not talking about God showing up every Sunday for a chat. Don't you find it strange that God only 'encounters' people inside their own heads, which is the exact place that hallucinations 'encounter' people? Have you encountered literature on the nature of delusions or confirmation bias?

You are right of course. God is a voice in my head because I am not strong enough to face the cold heartless universe without imaginary friends. And also because I like getting to drink wine for free in public. I try not to read about the nature of delusions or confirmation bias because it might challenge my faith and as I understand it, that stuff can't possibly apply to materialists, can it?

You aren't taking me very seriously. I'm going to invest more of my keystrokes on the other chaps in here.

King Mob

zoomtard wrote: »

Well it would be special pleading if empiricism was applied to all claims to truth. It isn't, so it wouldn't be. But it was a 100% effort to be funny and introduce some levity into proceedings because I feel awfully intimidated taking on a whole team of atheists.

Empiricism is applied to all claims of truth. Can youplease provide a single example of the contrary.

zoomtard wrote: »

W
But I don't/can't turn to empiricism when I seek different kinds of knowledge which are also essential to life such as how it feels for people who don't have full use of their body or how a sunny Saturday morning can possibly improved. I must turn to conversation or novels or the experience of breaking both my arms in the first case and the tasting of a well drawn espresso in the second.

These are matter of personal opinion not truth.
The claim that a god exists, is a matter of truth, not opinion.

zoomtard wrote: »

Such illustrations often get rejected when debating online because it so easily becomes an ego battle where we want to prove the other person wrong but they are no doubt valuable forms of knowledge that cannot be acquired empirically.

Such as?
Name one thing we know exists that has not been show to exist by empirical means.
What other methods are there than can accurately determine reality.

zoomtard wrote: »

I must repeat though: I am not against science or scepticism.

But you don't think it applies to you belief for some reason.
Why?

zoomtard wrote: »

W
One of my great heroes was the German resistance leader, poet, theologian and martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He said, "A god that could be proved would be an idol". There is much fruitful thought to be had in that.

So there is no way to ever show God exists?
How can you know he exists?

zoomtard wrote: »

I am not that big a fan of religion in general and do not aim to defend them here. Nor, for that sake, do I am to defend Christianity either. I am not here to convince anyone of anything to do with the Trinity.

So then you cannot dispute the idea that there is no empirical evidence for the existance of God?
Nor can you show a single person who has ever successfully do so?

zoomtard wrote: »

Let me state what I think of this clearly in case I have failed utterly to communicate clearly (which is my habit!):

I agree that it is a cold hard fact (in some non-empirical use of fact) that you believe in no gods. But the truth veracity of that claim is simply not a fact.

No my claim is, there is no empirical evidence for the existance of god, Therefore I lack belief in a god.

My conclusion is based on a cold hard fact.

Zillah

zoomtard wrote: »

Irrational prejudice is somewhat neutered when it is exposed. So much easier when it is self-exposed. So thanks.

Are you applying your scepticism rationally when you assuming that I am worthy only of disdain because I avidly and carefully read a book written in Hebrew (and Greek and an Aramaic derivative)?

Judging is very different to prejudice.

You are right of course. God is a voice in my head because I am not strong enough to face the cold heartless universe without imaginary friends. And also because I like getting to drink wine for free in public. I try not to read about the nature of delusions or confirmation bias because it might challenge my faith and as I understand it, that stuff can't possibly apply to materialists, can it?

You aren't taking me very seriously. I'm going to invest more of my keystrokes on the other chaps in here.

Heh, you're ashamed. I bet it is a voice. Or a feeling. Or was it actually a dream? That'd be hilarious.

And no. I'm not taking you seriously, your beliefs are absolutely ridiculous. I take you as seriously as I do a child fighting imaginary aliens. You happen to be a more articulate variation thereof, but you still assert ridiculous things. You're very used to society treating your magic nonsense with delicate preference, and look at you getting all huffy and sulky just because I'm calling a spade a spade.

zoomtard

King Mob wrote: »

Empiricism is applied to all claims of truth. Can youplease provide a single example of the contrary.

Can you empirically prove that empiricism is applicable to all claims of truth?

KingMob wrote:

But you don't think it applies to you belief for some reason.
Why?

Because I do not think my love of God is within the appropriate domain of empirical enquiry. For one thing, it is personal to me. Hence, empiricism is irrelevant.

KingMob wrote:

So there is no way to ever show God exists?
How can you know he exists?

There is no way and can be no way to empirically demonstrate the Christian God, which is for you equivalent to there being no way to ever show He exists (but not for me). But my faith in his existence is not the subject of this thread or my discussion in it. You keep dragging it there. I just want to talk about knowledge and how its influenced by experience!

KingMob wrote:

No my claim is, there is no empirical evidence for the existance of god, Therefore I lack belief in a god.

My conclusion is based on a cold hard fact.

So you can show me to some empirical data or peer reviewed work that will verify your claim that the non existence of the God proposed by Christians is a fact?

Zillah

Ah, now we're getting down to it, ye olde scorched earth policy: "No one can really know anything! cough Therefore God is as likely as anything else cough. Now watch as I behave exactly as if everything with empirical support were true and everything that lacks it were untrue except in the special case of my magic God who makes me feel nice."

You people.