Atheism

[stiggywiggy]

I disagree! After years of study and observation, I give zero (0) weight to the possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experienced by millions and I give zero(0) weight to the possibility of such claims by the mere five, thus they are given the same weight.

That is a very strange position. So let's go even further: Suppose all 6 billion people on the planet claim to have seen Jesus Christ, that is all except you. Meanwhile, only three people claim to have seen a flying purple unicorn. You'd give EQUAL weight to the even the remote possibility of either experience being genuine? I don't believe I'd admit that.

 

[stiggywiggy]

All I said was that people believed, and some still believe, that Zeus is real. Should I believe them? Should I believe them more if more people agree with them?

BELIEVE them, based on numbers? Of course not. We're not talking about believing, but rather the amount of weight given to the EVEN REMOTE POSSIBILITY that a testimony of someone who claims to have EXPERIENCED X should even be considered. And as I said, I know of no one who claims to have EXPERIENCED Zeus. Earlier, you suggested that was in "mythology books." Please tell me what mythology books report ancient Greek citizens as having experienced Zeus.

It's very rational. Let me put it another way: if one Nigerian prince says he's going to let you have some of his money if you send him some of yours, do you believe him?

No. Only if I heard people who claimed to have EXPERIENCED getting wealthy by that means. I really don't know anyone who has. Do you?

 

[stiggywiggy]

How can you be sure that what you, or *anyone* else, has experienced was a "transcendent" moment?

I cannot be sure about anyone but myself. But I cannot doubt that which I have experienced.

Is all we have your word for this?

Yes, but that is not a problem, since I am not trying to convince you that it was real. That would be foolish on my part.

How can you demonstrate this 'transcendence' to me?

I can't. Why would you think I would think I could?

 

[stiggywiggy]

Sure. This is why the testimony for Buddhism, Catholicism and Islam are obviously superior to that of Evangelical Protestant Christianity.

Superior because they have greater numbers? But you already said numbers don't matter. You seem confused. But yeah, I'd say if you give equal weight to Buddhism as you do to a flying Elvis, you'd be a fool.

Or was that not what you wanted to demonstrate here?

No, not really.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I was following the conversation -- your first claim that I indicated the believers in Santa to which I referred were adults

And yet I didn't, which is probably why you didn't provide any quote showing me doing so. I pointed out that it is the testimony of adults I was speaking of, and not children.

The point I was making in the first post, and you were dodging was that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.

Of course they are unreliable as a method of providing certitude. But why do you reckon juries are allowed to consider them?

 

[hollyda]

I pointed out that it is the testimony of adults I was speaking of, and not children.

Regarding what? All I said was many people believe in Santa. You said but they're not adults. I said I never said they were adults. You said but the majority of believers are adults. I'm guessing you're referring to a second type of believer in the latter statement, where I was following the original course of our side-discussion. Nouns and adjectives go a long way in avoiding typographical confusion.

Of course they are unreliable as a method of providing certitude. But why do you reckon juries are allowed to consider them?

Juries are allowed to consider them, sure. But typically as an addendum to evidence, not the main piece of evidence. The finger prints and the hair follicle on the smoking gun goes a lot farther to convict a man than someone saying they saw him holding it. As our understanding of science changes, so do our processes.

 

[Davian]

I cannot be sure about anyone but myself. But I cannot doubt that which I have experienced.

You cannot? How can you be *sure* that what you experienced was "transcendence"? How did you verify this?

Yes, but that is not a problem, since I am not trying to convince you that it was real. That would be foolish on my part.

Indeed. Why do you then tell us about these experiences?

I can't. Why would you think I would think I could?

I did not think you could. But does not your inability to demonstrate the authenticity of your experience as 'transcendance' (whatever that means) justify my dismissal of your experience as a genuine but *misinterpreted* as 'transcendent'?

 

[Ken-1122]

[/color]

Well, there you go. Not much more can be said about such blind stubborness, other than how you remind me of the stereotypical scientist in 50's B sci-fi flicks, who scoffs at even the remote possibility that all those citizens can be anything other than delusional.

So why do you say I am stubborn? because my opinion is different than yours? Is the only way I can be open minded is if I agree with you? Ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong?

Yes. I sure do. But don't take the "should" as a moral imperative, but rather what would be in line with commmon sense.

.
I am not taking your word "should" as a moral imperative, I am taking it as you claiming that popularity is some kind of indicator of the truth; which I disagree with. I guess we can agree to disagree on that one huh?
After all; it was only a few hundred years ago when millions thought the earth was flat and only a hand full said it was round. So much for popular opinion huh?

K

 

[Ken-1122]

That is a very strange position. So let's go even further: Suppose all 6 billion people on the planet claim to have seen Jesus Christ, that is all except you. Meanwhile, only three people claim to have seen a flying purple unicorn. You'd give EQUAL weight to the even the remote possibility of either experience being genuine? I don't believe I'd admit that.

If everybody in the entire world were able to see Jesus Christ but i could not, I would assume there were something wrong with me. But as you know, that ain't the case; only a tiny fraction of the world's population claim to have experienced your concept of God so I consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with them.

Ken

 

[keith99]

If everybody in the entire world were able to see Jesus Christ but i could not, I would assume there were something wrong with me. But as you know, that ain't the case; only a tiny fraction of the world's population claim to have experienced your concept of God so I consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with them.

Ken

If people claimed to see Christ, purple unicorns, lepricons, ghosts or Harry Potter I'd be inclined to use the same kind of test.

See if they agree when whatever it is is there. Then if all agree it is in the room ask them at some point to remember where it is and seperate them and ask each out of hearing of the others just where it was.

My guess is the more asymetrical the setting is the better the matches are, but only rarely when 3 or more are gathered making the claim will all agree as to location.

 

[RobinRobyn]

BELIEVE them, based on numbers? Of course not. We're not talking about believing, but rather the amount of weight given to the EVEN REMOTE POSSIBILITY that a testimony of someone who claims to have EXPERIENCED X should even be considered.

The remote possibility of what?

And as I said, I know of no one who claims to have EXPERIENCED Zeus. Earlier, you suggested that was in "mythology books." Please tell me what mythology books report ancient Greek citizens as having experienced Zeus.

Ancient Greeks believed Zeus was real. You believe Christ is real. From my perspective, I don't see the difference.

No. Only if I heard people who claimed to have EXPERIENCED getting wealthy by that means. I really don't know anyone who has. Do you?

Please answer the question. You don't believe one Nigerian prince's offer of money, but if a hundred million Nigerian princes offer you money in exchange for some of yours, do you believe them more? You've said it's irrational not to.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I'm not sure why this is so important, buut it looks like we'll need to take it a step at a time:

Regarding what? All I said was many people believe in Santa.

Yes. You said that.

You said but they're not adults.

Exactly. They are children.

I said I never said they were adults.

And I never said you did. I pointed out that virtually NONE are adults, compared with the millions (billions?) of adults who belive in Christ.

You said but the majority of believers are adults.

Yes, beacuse they are. I'm glad we got that cleared up.

I'm guessing you're referring to a second type of believer in the latter statement, where I was following the original course of our side-discussion. Nouns and adjectives go a long way in avoiding typographical confusion.

Well, I thought we had it cleared up. Now I have no idea what you're talking about.

Juries are allowed to consider them, sure.

But you don't consider them at all? So you're admitting you wouldn't be fit for a jury?

But typically as an addendum to evidence, not the main piece of evidence.

So you would consider it? Make up your mind.

 

[stiggywiggy]

You cannot? How can you be *sure* that what you experienced was "transcendence"?

Well, even though you do not accept the reality of transcenedent experiences, you are hopefully smart enough to recognize this:

IF there is a transcendent God, this alleged God SHOULD be able to manifest his reality in a convincing manner to those to whom he does so, as opposed to those to whom he has not yet done so, e.g. you.

How did you verify this?

Indeed.

Indeed what? You're answering your own questions to me?

Why do you then tell us about these experiences?

Wrong guy. I never tod you a thing about my experiences.

I did not think you could.

And yet I can. You mean I haven't, I guess.

But does not your inability.....

What inability? I sure have the ability to relate my experiences to those whom I know would not automatically dismiss them with 100% certitude that they were deceptions. That would leave you out.

 

[stiggywiggy]

So why do you say I am stubborn? because my opinion is different than yours?

No. I certainly never stated nor even implied that.

Is the only way I can be open minded is if I agree with you?

No. I never even asked you to agree with me. I pointed out that you had said you would give zero weight to the testimony of transcendent experinces of billions. That's either stubborn or foolish. Either motivation would preclude your serving on a jury.

I am not taking your word "should" as a moral imperative, I am taking it as you claiming that popularity is some kind of indicator of the truth

And yet I never said that, which is why you failed to put up a quote where I did.

After all; it was only a few hundred years ago when millions thought the earth was flat and only a hand full said it was round. So much for popular opinion huh?

I am unaware of anyone who claims to have experientially verified the flatness of the earth, are you?

 

[stiggywiggy]

only a tiny fraction of the world's population claim to have experienced your concept of God

That is incorrect, unless the definition of "tiny" changed overnight.

so I consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with them.

Like what? What do you think is "wrong," for example, with Jimmy Carter?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

That is incorrect, unless the definition of "tiny" changed overnight.

I'd guess he means that your specific concept of god is that of the non-dominational church. Which differs from the catolic concept of god aswell as the protestant concept of god.

As such, the non-dominational church is a tiny fragment of the population. Thus the people who have experienced its specific concept of god are even smaller.

 

[stiggywiggy]

The remote possibility of what?

You just put it up there:


that a testimony of someone who claims to have EXPERIENCED X should even be considered.

Ancient Greeks believed Zeus was real.

You know of ancient Greeks who claim to have experienced the reality of Zeus? Who?

Please answer the question. You don't believe one Nigerian prince's offer of money, but if a hundred million Nigerian princes offer you money in exchange for some of yours, do you believe them more? You've said it's irrational not to.

Again, I know of NO ONE (ZERO: ZILCH) who claims to have gotten a dime from that Nigerian scheme, and yet I know hundereds (and there are millions I don't know) who claim to have experienced the reality of Christ.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I'd guess he means that your specific concept of god is that of the non-dominational church. Which differs from the catolic concept of god aswell as the protestant concept of god.

As such, the non-dominational church is a tiny fragment of the population. Thus the people who have experienced its specific concept of god are even smaller.

No, I was just pointing out the obvious: that millions claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ and that that is definitely not a tiny fraction of the world's population. Denominations have nothing to do with it.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

No, I was just pointing out the obvious: that millions claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ and that that is definitely not a tiny fraction of the world's population. Denominations have nothing to do with it.

If you are only going to look for simularity and ignore all the contradictions then you will end up with such a poor conclusion I guess.

 

[stiggywiggy]

If you are only going to look for simularity and ignore all the contradictions then you will end up with such a poor conclusion I guess.

Contradiction? You don't even attempt to list one. I can ony assume your thinking goes something like this:

If a Methodist claims to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ, it must have been a qualitatively different experience he is claiming, than one from a Baptist who claims the same.