• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?

 
 
 
Lion IRC said:
Juma said:
Lion IRC said:
It's of a type which you wouldn't believe.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe in it?
Click to expand...

Because it happened to me.

Whether you're a hyperskeptical empiricist or gullible naive fool, all evidence derives from your senses. Even evidence experienced by others and reported to you has to travel past your eyes/ears before you get to decide whether or not to believe.
Click to expand...

What personal experience could happen to a person to make the existence of God unequivocally the known answer and drive out much better established explanations?

For me, it would be something like, "if a God could completely stop hunger, disease and crime for one full week, I would be unable to draw any conclusion other than the supernatural to explain it." Of course, for someone to claim that Supernatural being was Yahweh "him"self, I would need more. Like, "Globally, the pages of all religious texts other than the correct translation of the bible were to go blank for one month," (to give time to verify), then that would be pretty convincing and would have no more-likely explanation to use.

You'll note that nothing would convince me in any way if I were the only one to know about it. An hallucination would be a much more probative answer
 
Yet even if God incontrovertibly 'proves' something to you, your testimony that it really really happened would still be self-reported evidence.
And skeptics can gainsay anyone's Road to Damascus experience.
 
To be convincing to reasonable people, evidence needs to convince a lot of people. That's a minimum requirement - if most people find the evidence convincing, a claim might still be false; but if most find it unconvincing, it's almost certainly false.

Evidence that a large fraction of qualified people don't find compelling is weak evidence at best, and cannot be used to reasonably support extraordinary claims.

The very existence of doubt is sufficient to rule out an omnipotent entity that cares whether people are aware of it.
 
Lion IRC said:
Yet even if God incontrovertibly 'proves' something to you, your testimony that it really really happened would still be self-reported evidence.
And skeptics can gainsay anyone's Road to Damascus experience.
Click to expand...

Well, if God's going to give a personal experience to one person, why not just do the same for every person?

It seems to me that the energy and effort involved in providing a personally tailored personal experience which each person would take as definitive evidence of his existence to each and every individual who ever has or ever will live would be exactly the same as what it took for him to give it to that one guy once. Since that would be no more trouble on his part, why didn't he just do it all for the rest of us at the same time?
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Lion IRC said:
Yet even if God incontrovertibly 'proves' something to you, your testimony that it really really happened would still be self-reported evidence.
And skeptics can gainsay anyone's Road to Damascus experience.
Click to expand...

Well, if God's going to give a personal experience to one person, why not just do the same for every person?

It seems to me that the energy and effort involved in providing a personally tailored personal experience which each person would take as definitive evidence of his existence to each and every individual who ever has or ever will live would be exactly the same as what it took for him to give it to that one guy once. Since that would be no more trouble on his part, why didn't he just do it all for the rest of us at the same time?
Click to expand...

For the exact same reason that aliens always abduct people at night from remote and lonely locations with few witnesses, instead of from Central Park on a busy day when millions of people will see, photograph, and film them.
 
Yes, it would be nice to have a god that performed on command.


3084038793_7e7dc5939f.jpg
 
Lion IRC said:
Yet even if God incontrovertibly 'proves' something to you, your testimony that it really really happened would still be self-reported evidence.
And skeptics can gainsay anyone's Road to Damascus experience.
Click to expand...

Quite so. Every "Road to Damascus" experience is more likely a concussion than a God.

Yes, it would be nice to have a god that performed on command
Click to expand...
Why not? He expects humans to perform on command, so he must think performing on command is a good thing.

But here's the point: if the God actually wants people to know he exists, why is he a hide and seek trickster? That's, like the stupidest thing ever. Really. What "his" game? "I only want the most gullible. ONLY the ones who can be convinced by practically no evidence! Anyone who thinks critically - not my type of sheep."

And this never strikes Christians as completely idiotic - as _exactly_ the thing one would expect from authoritarian preachers with no evidence.

But seriously - this question: WHY? Why do you think your god plays hide and seek when he could so easily convince everyone at once that s/he/it exists and should be obeyed and worshipped and fondled? What's the game? Why do you think anyone would play it?
 
Rhea said:
Lion IRC said:
Yet even if God incontrovertibly 'proves' something to you, your testimony that it really really happened would still be self-reported evidence.
And skeptics can gainsay anyone's Road to Damascus experience.
Click to expand...

Quite so. Every "Road to Damascus" experience is more likely a concussion than a God.

Yes, it would be nice to have a god that performed on command
Click to expand...
Why not? He expects humans to perform on command, so he must think performing on command is a good thing.

But here's the point: if the God actually wants people to know he exists, why is he a hide and seek trickster? That's, like the stupidest thing ever. Really. What "his" game? "I only want the most gullible. ONLY the ones who can be convinced by practically no evidence! Anyone who thinks critically - not my type of sheep."

And this never strikes Christians as completely idiotic - as _exactly_ the thing one would expect from authoritarian preachers with no evidence.

But seriously - this question: WHY? Why do you think your god plays hide and seek when he could so easily convince everyone at once that s/he/it exists and should be obeyed and worshipped and fondled? What's the game? Why do you think anyone would play it?
Click to expand...

Text version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

Video version:


If an all-knowing, all-powerful being desires a "personal relationship" with all humans, then it doesn't make much sense for Him to hide like this.

I mean, we don't need faith to believe in elephants, do we? Does this mean elephants love us more than this god person?

What about rocks? We don't need faith to believe in rocks.
 
Underseer said:
Rhea said:
Quite so. Every "Road to Damascus" experience is more likely a concussion than a God.


Why not? He expects humans to perform on command, so he must think performing on command is a good thing.

But here's the point: if the God actually wants people to know he exists, why is he a hide and seek trickster? That's, like the stupidest thing ever. Really. What "his" game? "I only want the most gullible. ONLY the ones who can be convinced by practically no evidence! Anyone who thinks critically - not my type of sheep."

And this never strikes Christians as completely idiotic - as _exactly_ the thing one would expect from authoritarian preachers with no evidence.

But seriously - this question: WHY? Why do you think your god plays hide and seek when he could so easily convince everyone at once that s/he/it exists and should be obeyed and worshipped and fondled? What's the game? Why do you think anyone would play it?
Click to expand...

Text version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_nonbelief

Video version:


If an all-knowing, all-powerful being desires a "personal relationship" with all humans, then it doesn't make much sense for Him to hide like this.

I mean, we don't need faith to believe in elephants, do we? Does this mean elephants love us more than this god person?

What about rocks? We don't need faith to believe in rocks.
Click to expand...


Indeed. As a wise man once said, "The very existence of doubt is sufficient to rule out an omnipotent entity that cares whether people are aware of it."
 
RIGHT
THATS IT!

All you !#&@%¥ atheists ever want to [expletive deleted] do is argue.
Im done with this #&@%\# thread!
 
Lion IRC said:
Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?
No - we're grateful.

Matthew 10:14 refers to people who are willing to hear what we have to say.
1st Peter 3:15 tells us to give an answer to everyone who asks
Click to expand...

Lion, we are asking, not (necessarily) arguing.

True, we aren't satisfied with your answers (those you have given, anyway).

Yet even if God incontrovertibly 'proves' something to you, your testimony that it really really happened would still be self-reported evidence.
And skeptics can gainsay anyone's Road to Damascus experience.
Click to expand...

And don't you think we *should* do that? Keep in mind the number of 'Road to Damascus' experiences that convince someone to drown their children, or shoot up a school, or commit suicide in some particularly nasty manner. I don't know how many inmates in asylums are utterly convinced they're the reincarnation of Jesus, and everyone should fall down and worship them; but I suspect there's more than a few of that sort.

Aren't you personally quite willing to gainsay the experiences of those who hold to different faiths than your own?
 
Jobar said:
Don't Call Religious Believers Stupid (Tip 1 of 10 For Reaching Out To Religious Believers)

All 10 of those tips are excellent, IMO. Many here would do well to incorporate them into their debating style, I'd say.

Back in 2011 there was a good thread at Secular Cafe on those tips. Skills for Talking to Believers

I'd like to think that believers would do well to follow some of the advice there, too. Didn't someone once say something about speaking as gently as a dove, and wisely as a serpent? Good advice, whoever said it.
Click to expand...

Only saw this now. This is an excellent read. The writer hits the nail right on the head repeatedly and the writer's advice should be taken by us all.
 
Lion IRC said:
RIGHT
THATS IT!

All you !#&@%¥ atheists ever want to [expletive deleted] do is argue.
Im done with this #&@%\# thread!
Click to expand...

Is this serious?
Not trying to be cutesy?

Aren’t we just asking you questions and then offering our thoughts behind why we ask?

So many times a theist will say, “you’re trying to trap me!” So I say, I’m not and I’ll prove it - here’s why I’m asking my question.

And all this make your angry? Seriously?
I thought you were just joking until I saw the other replies.

Truth is, all of us have a thing or two about the bible that causes us to be _unable_ to believe. So we ask you about those things. To you that’s “arguing”?

For me it’s two things:
1) the trickster hide and seek god. It just doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. I was hoping you’d explain why it doesn’t bother you when it defies itself
2) Heaven. I haven’t brought this up yet, but the whole definition of heaven also defies itself. I don’t get how anyone can believe it.

But I was just going with #1 for now.
 
Last edited:
No, I was mocking the Op.

@Jobar
No, I don't simply gainsay contesting religious experiences.
In fact, I find that most of these add weight to the overall case for God.
 
Reading Jobar’s link and clicking through to “how to talk to atheists,”. This one seems useful”

In particular, make up your mind whether you believe there is evidence for God and say what you think about that. If you think there is evidence then stand up for the evidence. If you don’t, then don’t use it just to try to persuade us. Nothing is more maddening than when religious people offer reasons for belief as though they really want to consider evidence but then run straight for the cover of faith as soon as their evidence is shown to be shoddy. Make up your mind.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...reaching-out-to-atheists/#qGrR946r6d3MZLe6.99
Click to expand...

- - - Updated - - -

Lion IRC said:
No, I was mocking the Op.
Click to expand...

Oh, phew. Glad my radar was correctly calibrated after all.
 
Lion IRC said:
No, I was mocking the Op.

@Jobar
No, I don't simply gainsay contesting religious experiences.
In fact, I find that most of these add weight to the overall case for God.
Click to expand...

Mmm- I rather doubt you'd include the experience of some early Aztec priest, whose religious revelation led him to start tearing out the still-beating hearts of captives and offering them to Smoking Mirror. Or of some modern Muslim extremist who's convinced that Allah is telling him to blow up a Doctors Without Borders clinic, with all the children getting vaccinated there.

No doubt you'd deny that such awfulness is validly religious; yet the ones committing those horrors deny your views of what God wants of us.

So I repeat- shouldn't we always question the religious visions presented to us? How should we- how should you- determine which unevidenced reports of individual inner experiences should be trusted and accepted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom