-
Features
Dear theists, are you angry at me because I argue with you?
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
This is the part I find fascinating. _how_ you decide you know things.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
I'm not the only one who claims to know things about God
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
Fine. So, how do you know the Christian God does exist?
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
I see.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book about religion. When it was published I regarded its title as an insult to theists. Not any more.
Don't get me wrong. I still don't think theists are insane, but one does not need to be insane to be deluded.
And that was what?
southernhybrid
Contributor
And this is why I rarely argue with Christians. They just come back and say, I know it's true because I've had a personal experience with god.
I used to have a patient that was delusional. She honestly believed that she was a queen and had once been married to various movie stars. It was just easier to allow her to have her delusions than it was to challenge her. To challenge her meant she would become very upset and hostile. I've known Christians that become very upset and hostile if you challenge their delusions. As long as they don't use those delusions to harm anyone, it's better to let them be happy in their false beliefs. I'm not saying you have to be mentally ill to be a Christian or to have delusions. Sometimes atheists have their own delusions about other things. I'm just saying that people will hold onto their delusions until they experience such cognitive dissonance that they are no longer able to able to hold on to their unsupported beliefs.
I actually had an argument with a local atheist friend earlier this week. He kept insisting that Christians experience cognitive dissonance, while I insisted that most don't. If they did, they would eventually give up their beliefs or be very uncomfortable holding on to them. This is exactly what caused me to give up my Christian beliefs when I was about 19. Atheism followed several years later. It was the only position that I could hold without being threatened by cognitive dissonance. People don't choose to be atheists. We just don't see any logical explanation for gods or the supernatural, so our atheism is the default position.
I don't hate religion. In fact, many churches do a lot of positive things for their communities, while others only make people feel small and guilt ridden. I get the attraction to mythology. I just can't take mythology as literal truth. In fact, I've known atheist Christians. They love the community and the sense of belonging that it gives them. They embrace many parts of the Christian mythology, but they don't take the supernatural elements literally. I am pretty sure that there are many atheists sitting in church pews on Sundays.
I used to have a patient that was delusional. She honestly believed that she was a queen and had once been married to various movie stars. It was just easier to allow her to have her delusions than it was to challenge her. To challenge her meant she would become very upset and hostile. I've known Christians that become very upset and hostile if you challenge their delusions. As long as they don't use those delusions to harm anyone, it's better to let them be happy in their false beliefs. I'm not saying you have to be mentally ill to be a Christian or to have delusions. Sometimes atheists have their own delusions about other things. I'm just saying that people will hold onto their delusions until they experience such cognitive dissonance that they are no longer able to able to hold on to their unsupported beliefs.
I actually had an argument with a local atheist friend earlier this week. He kept insisting that Christians experience cognitive dissonance, while I insisted that most don't. If they did, they would eventually give up their beliefs or be very uncomfortable holding on to them. This is exactly what caused me to give up my Christian beliefs when I was about 19. Atheism followed several years later. It was the only position that I could hold without being threatened by cognitive dissonance. People don't choose to be atheists. We just don't see any logical explanation for gods or the supernatural, so our atheism is the default position.
I don't hate religion. In fact, many churches do a lot of positive things for their communities, while others only make people feel small and guilt ridden. I get the attraction to mythology. I just can't take mythology as literal truth. In fact, I've known atheist Christians. They love the community and the sense of belonging that it gives them. They embrace many parts of the Christian mythology, but they don't take the supernatural elements literally. I am pretty sure that there are many atheists sitting in church pews on Sundays.
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
An event today prompted me to rant, and this thread title seems exactly the place for it.
Christian1: Hawking was a jerk because he once told a little kid that he was an idiot for believing in god (note: No reference for this event was given, nor can I find one online, but...)
Christian2: Yeah, and it’s sad that he wasn’t Christian so he wasn’t a good guy.
Me: Wait, so when Christians say, it, it’s okay, but when Hawking says it, he’s a jerk?
Christians: FUCK YOU! DON’T YOU DARE ATTACK MY RELIGION, HOW DARE YOU!
Yeah, whatevs. Typical response pattern. I condemn you, my book condemns you, my whole religion condemns you for not being a believer. Also you’ll burn in hell for it. This atheist now? He’s a real jerk for condemning people on their beliefs (still no evidence that it even happened, btw). And don’t you dare attack my religion by pointing out the parallels!
Christianity is a snowflake.
I'll apply your own standard of disbelief.
No reference for this snowflake anecdote was given, nor can I find one online.
I just have to take your word for it that it happened as you claim.
Wut.
If she had said, “I claim this happened because I was there and saw it,” I would have stated that as evidence, and I would have probably believed her because she’s generally trustworthy.
So, applying my own standard, “I claim that anecdote happened because I was there and saw it.”
(That was obvious)
And since you’re going to claim that I’ve just validated “personal exoerience” as evidence, let me point out that it should be obvious to the most casual observer that I’m talking in both cases about whether someone has heard a conversation beween two people. Two human people; beings known for centuries to engage in the activitiy of conversing.
I am obviously not talking about taking one person’s witness as evidence for an event that has never once been shown to happen. That would be stupid. Clearly, obviously, _achingly_ stupid.
One does not believe every claim that every person has made. One (obviously) weighs it against reality. Christians often have a hard time with this, as they readily accept the stories of their parents, but not the stories of the Hindu’s parents. They believe one, but not the other, but then claim everyone should believe them and no one else. The rest of us look at that and say, “you are not making sense, dude.”
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
It's of a type which you wouldn't believe.
Learner
Veteran Member
I like Prof. Keith Parsons interesting explanation which is often heard and generally shared by many atheists: Why do Christians have "personal experiences" or "hallucinations"?
I also like Craigs response.
(please excuse the vid title ... its all I could find of this particular segment)
I also like Craigs response.
(please excuse the vid title ... its all I could find of this particular segment)
I like Prof. Keith Parsons interesting explanation which is often heard and generally shared by many atheists: Why do Christians have "personal experiences" or "hallucinations"?
I also like Craigs response.
(please excuse the vid title ... its all I could find of this particular segment)
Not everyone can click on videos. Please provide a summary or transcript.
(Please always do this - it’s rude to make people invest 3-4 minutes to get your 10 second point)
Underseer
Contributor
I like Prof. Keith Parsons interesting explanation which is often heard and generally shared by many atheists: Why do Christians have "personal experiences" or "hallucinations"?
I also like Craigs response.
(please excuse the vid title ... its all I could find of this particular segment)
Not everyone can click on videos. Please provide a summary or transcript.
(Please always do this - it’s rude to make people invest 3-4 minutes to get your 10 second point)
Oops. I'm probably guilty of not doing that. Sorry.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
I like Prof. Keith Parsons interesting explanation which is often heard and generally shared by many atheists: Why do Christians have "personal experiences" or "hallucinations"?
I also like Craigs response.
(please excuse the vid title ... its all I could find of this particular segment)
Not everyone can click on videos. Please provide a summary or transcript.
(Please always do this - it’s rude to make people invest 3-4 minutes to get your 10 second point)
Basically, Keith Parsons said that the experiences of the Jesus disciples could have been real experiences, but the best explanation of such experiences would be that they were hallucinations. He claimed that a substantial portion of the population normally experiences some hallucinations, so that was the more likely explanation. Craig objected that one couldn't just dismiss all extraordinary experiences of that sort a priori. They needed to be investigated on their own merits. Then he insistently asked Parsons if there were any experience he could have that would convince him that God was real. Parsons emphatically insisted that there was. If an earthquake happened to get his attention and then God appeared in all his glory to berate Parsons for his lack of faith, then he, Parsons, would join Craig in his church pew. At that point, Craig said "And you wouldn't just claim you were experiencing a hallucination?" To which the audience laughed and clapped.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
People who can't click on videos aren't being made to invest 3-4 minutes.
Neither do they know how whether the point being made is 10 seconds or 100 seconds - because they can't click on the video.
Rudeness? I don't think so.
Otherwise everyone who posts any linked content should provide an advance summary/explanation/trigger warning.
Why do you believe in it?
Yes, my point was that even people who _can_ click on videos deserve a summary of what’s in it, so they can decide whether they want to invest time in your point. And those who cannot click, you’ve just wasted space in the forum.
So for either audience, it’s rude to have no short summary (really, one sentence is not too much for you) for any link you post. Any link to an external site, or even to another thread, should have a lede. It’s just wise if you want to make a point that matters.
Underseer
Contributor
I like Prof. Keith Parsons interesting explanation which is often heard and generally shared by many atheists: Why do Christians have "personal experiences" or "hallucinations"?
I also like Craigs response.
(please excuse the vid title ... its all I could find of this particular segment)
Wow, you take William Lane "I tried to disprove relativity with a syllogism" Craig seriously?
Hey, there is a resurrection described in one of my fantasy novels, that means that the resurrection is real, right? I mean, if it's in a book, it must be true!
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
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.