|
BrandorKP posted:Other people who have had different life experiences than I have had reach conclusions I disagree and are wrong. Having trouble parsing this sentence quote:You don't see the problem or the fundamental hypocrisy with thinking that way? Isn't how a fundamentalist thinks about the gay community? Not at all. How is "you as a person are intrinsically sinful because my God says so" the same as "many people are having transformative experiences but taking away some poorly thought out conclusions from them"? Actually, I'll go a step farther and say that they are nearly opposite. I am advocating more empathy and introspection, and less dogmatic adherence to ideas. I can understand and sympathize with having an experience in a religious context and thinking that it demonstrates that religion's truth, in the same way I can sympathize with someone thinking that however they were raised is "normal", or that their favorite food is objectively the best. We have an innate difficulty with seeing things from someone else's point of view. That doesn't make it right. And pointing it out doesn't make me hypocritical. quote:And again not all religious people have had spiritual experiences either. Yes, I am aware. Hence why I use hedges like "most" or "many".
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:OK, It's not so much "they are wrong" as "there is no reason for a rational human being to be persuaded by them."
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's not so much "they are wrong" as "there is no reason for a rational human being to be persuaded by them." And the other shoe drops. Implied because they are not rational.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And the other shoe drops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And the other shoe drops. Yes? Everyone is irrational to differing degrees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
I for one would enjoy more stories about people's religious experiences. I think it is very interesting. Besides, hasn't the whole Free Will into Problem of Evil into Free Will into Well Convince Me debate been done in pretty much every religious thread up to this point?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is an extremely uncharitable reading, the they in that sentence has access to evidence the human being that is being persuaded doesn't. Ytlaya might also believe that someone who is persuaded that God exists on the basis of subjective experience alone is behaving irrationally (and I don't think that's a far out claim), but it's not implied in what was written. "No reason for a rational human being to be persuaded by them" Look, it's problematic to look at the beliefs a person has arising from experiences they have had and to then go no rational person would persuaded by that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
which is why we can all agree that mcdowell is right! let's get ready for the big recycling/suicide party!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And the other shoe drops. I'm not implying the people who believe are irrational. I'm implying that it would be irrational for someone else to believe on the basis of someone else's (who isn't them) divine experience. I actually consider personal experience to be probably the closest thing to a rational reason for believing that there is, since I don't really know what other people have experienced. But it's kind of silly when people mention such experiences to others and then act confused when they do not consider that particularly persuasive. edit: Generally speaking, the only sort of religious arguments I care to take part in are ones that involve addressing claims that are meant to persuade other people. That is, I do not have any interest in arguing with believers about whether a God exists or not unless they're explicitly saying something along the lines of "I have evidence that I believe should convince you as well." Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"No reason for a rational human being to be persuaded by them" In what way? Experiences are not infallible indicators. We know that humans are notoriously prone to flawed assumptions about their experiences. Are we suddenly pretending that's not the case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Vindicator posted:In what way? Experiences are not infallible indicators. We know that humans are notoriously prone to flawed assumptions about their experiences. Are we suddenly pretending that's not the case? If by "suddenly" you mean "the entirety of human history" then yes, we've all along been expected to just accept whatever dumbass thing someone claims they saw / heard / smelled / felt that is unassailable proof of divine influence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:"No reason for a rational human being to be persuaded by them" twodot fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
OP you should really just start reading some philosophy. The Spinoza earlier in the thread was pretty drat good. An observable God is something you talk about with Evangelists and not worth your time. It's a weak form of religion. twodot posted:No it's not. I can believe you earnestly believe your uncle works for Nintendo, but the fact you believe that isn't going to persuade me your uncle does. That's what Brandor is saying..? Not sure what you're arguing about. Eskaton fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:That's what Brandor is saying..? Not sure what you're arguing about. There's some confusion in the wording. Brandor misinterpreted my post as saying "no rational person would be persuaded by their own personal divine experiences" when I meant "no rational person would be persuaded by someone else's divine experiences". Twodot then interpreted Brandor's post as saying what my original post actually said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's some confusion in the wording. Brandor misinterpreted my post as saying "no rational person would be persuaded by their own personal divine experiences" when I meant "no rational person would be persuaded by someone else's divine experiences". Twodot then interpreted Brandor's post as saying what my original post actually said. Things experienced by others are compelling. Should I ignore the queer experience in my beliefs? Should I ignore the African American experience in my beliefs? I'm not either of those things. It's nonsense to ignore the experiences of other people, they are compelling and a rational reason to believe something. They aren't a sole reason, but again it's problematic to rule them out. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 04:13
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Things experienced by others are compelling. Should I ignore the queer experience in my beliefs? Should I ignore the African American experience in my beliefs? I'm not either of those things. It's nonsense to ignore the experiences of other people, they are compelling and a rational reason to believe something. They aren't a sole reason, but again it's problematic to rule them out. Not the same thing. With regards to queer people, the thing they might be trying to "prove" is that they have the various feelings that are associated with being queer, so their personal experience is direct evidence of that. With religions this doesn't work, because you are trying to prove something other than the person's own feelings. It would be an accurate analogy if the goal was simply to prove that the religious person believes in God, but it is not analogous to trying to prove the existence of God itself. Countless people have different, often conflicting, personal experiences, and there is no way to determine which are more valid than any other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Things experienced by others are compelling. Should I ignore the queer experience in my beliefs? Should I ignore the African American experience in my beliefs? I'm not either of those things. It's nonsense to ignore the experiences of other people, they are compelling and a rational reason to believe something. They aren't a sole reason, but again it's problematic to rule them out. Different claims require different evidence. Personal experience is sufficient for personal claims, ie a black person's experiences regarding the treatment of blacks in America. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and personal experience simply isn't sufficient evidence of the existence of a God for anyone but the person who holds those experiences. Especially when every claim conflicts or contradicts every other claim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Brandor, you're saying skepticism in its totality is nonsense? Also lol at the backhanded comparison of racial and LGBT strife to the struggles of white Christian men. The War on Christmas is real!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:OP you should really just start reading some philosophy. The Spinoza earlier in the thread was pretty drat good. This from the person whose biggest contribution to the thread was "hey, you can be a Christian and an atheist too!" You aren't qualified to tell people about their philosophical shortcomings and the concepts you're dropping into the discussion - many of which I have indeed heard of, by the way - are moronic to the point of near meaninglessness at best. quote:An observable God is something you talk about with Evangelists and not worth your time. It's a weak form of religion. I can't understand the people whose contribution to the discussion is something along these lines, as though these "hardline" sorts of believers are both a tiny minority and not representative of the "real" religion. If you are making this assertion to begin a discussion on the type of God they/we/anyone should believe in, then fine: type away. But if you are making this assertion in order to point out flaws in my reasoning, you aren't participating in this discussion honestly or you are bewilderingly ignorant of the way many many believers participate in the faith, or both. Maybe you should read some goddamn philosophy, or theology, or loving any book ever. BrandorKP posted:They aren't a sole reason, but again it's problematic to rule them out. You are still making the mistake of thinking I'm ruling people's experiences out; I realize this is the tactic of many atheists but I am not among them. I recognize that people have powerfully transformative experiences under the aegis of their respective religion, but I am proposing - based on the evidence of it happening in multiple religious contexts, as well as some non-religious ones - that it can't be used to prove the exclusive truth of any doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I can't understand the people whose contribution to the discussion is something along these lines, as though these "hardline" sorts of believers are both a tiny minority and not representative of the "real" religion. I think it's more that it's a position held in a few specific sects of Protestants and at least one of the major players in this conversation is Catholic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:There's some confusion in the wording. Brandor misinterpreted my post as saying "no rational person would be persuaded by their own personal divine experiences" when I meant "no rational person would be persuaded by someone else's divine experiences". Twodot then interpreted Brandor's post as saying what my original post actually said. You're being generous, when Brandor is quote farming to take things out of context or take offense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
E: nvm, OP. I don't care.
Eskaton fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I recognize that people have powerfully transformative experiences under the aegis of their respective religion, but I am proposing - based on the evidence of it happening in multiple religious contexts, as well as some non-religious ones - that it can't be used to prove the exclusive truth of any doctrine. Agreed, though if, to investigate the nature of such experiences, you undertake the practices that lead to them happening in multiple religious contexts, you might wind up with a better intuitive sense of what religious metahphors (and religious texts generally) are getting at across various traditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
If there were a repeatable, proven physiological explanation for one's rapturous deity-ascribed "experiences," would theists reconsider their beliefs? I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
beer and wine is evidence enough for the existance of god and that god loves us
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
its obvious that god exists look in a loving telescope for once in your loving life but whats harder to determine is if god loves us and well he sent his only son to save our souls and he made beer liquor and wine so god loves us and wants to save us
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSvFpBOe8eY
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
This is your best post tbh
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
duodenum posted:If there were a repeatable, proven physiological explanation for one's rapturous deity-ascribed "experiences," would theists reconsider their beliefs? I doubt it. but there isn't
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
SirJohnnyMcDonald posted:This is your best post tbh thank you bad canaaddiiaan i believe in god because im fukin relaxing drinking feasting and i didn't built this maybe gods not an old man with a white beard but something GOOD madfe this universe whre i can chillax free and safe wshatevfer that is, i worship it
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
the biggest oppression i face is literally the moderators on thsi forum any maybe like illness and desease so like wtf i haVe no beef with the creator of this universe
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
there but for the grace of god go I
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
if you doubt the existance of god go buy some 12 yr old single malt scotch and taste it and then get back to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
the mandlebrot set is another proof of god, but you gotta know math to realize WTF IS SO MUCH STRUCTURE IS GOING ON IN A SIMPLE MATHEY THING?!?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
"mostly an empty black void and the best thing in it slowly poisons you to death"
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
I believe there is probably a God. But I don't really have a reason why I believe that and I don't let it affect the way I live my life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:but there isn't Yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:but there isn't I'm sure I'll regret touching the poop, but the point is that these Bronze Age cultures ascribed anything they didn't understand to the acts of a supernatural power. You're doing the same thing if you misunderstand how flawed the senses and brain can be, especially in extraordinary circumstances, and ascribe your "experiences" to the supernatural. It's telling how all of the testimonials I've cared to read in this thread describing why one believes seem to boil down to such "experiences."
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
duodenum posted:I'm sure I'll regret touching the poop, but the point is that these Bronze Age cultures ascribed anything they didn't understand to the acts of a supernatural power. You're doing the same thing if you misunderstand how flawed the senses and brain can be, especially in extraordinary circumstances, and ascribe your "experiences" to the supernatural. It's telling how all of the testimonials I've cared to read in this thread describing why one believes seem to boil down to such "experiences." I've had no supernatural experiences. I don't believe you can have a truly supernatural experience. I believe the fact of existence at all is sufficient proof of God's existence. So, the strong anthropic principle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I've had no supernatural experiences. I don't believe you can have a truly supernatural experience. I believe the fact of existence at all is sufficient proof of God's existence. So, the strong anthropic principle? Why do you believe existence necessitates a god?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2016 03:05
|
|