The Atheist Experience

The Atheist Experience Aug 5, 2018 1:01:02 GMT

Quote

Post by Arlon10 on Aug 5, 2018 1:01:02 GMT

Aug 4, 2018 20:26:47 GMT @graham said:

<1,2,34,5,6,7,8,9>

1) You can just ask them [whether they are gnostic].

Then the word "gnostic" means whatever any individual whosoever chooses it to mean. Then for 400 gnostics there could be 400 different definitions of what it means to be gnostic. In other words you have no definition whatever that can be applied with any consistent meaning. That is not a definition.

2) This weird thing you have that only people expressing a positive belief for or against a proposition have any place debating it is nonsensical.

I am fully aware that people can say things they do not believe. When they do it is called a lie. If they truly lack belief then they wouldn't speak out, unless it's because they are having a psychotic episode.

3) And demonstrating yet again that you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, there is a standard for the burden of proof. The standard is that a person who makes a positive claim has the burden to support that claim.

Debates (unlike after dinner speeches) involve two sides each with a claim. If one side does not contest the claim of the other side then it has no claim of its own and the side that has a claim doesn't need to prove anything (an after dinner speech). A proof is only necessary when there is a counter claim. Now how do you decide who has the burden of proof since both sides have a claim? Suppose you claim that arsenic is not toxic, do you have no burden of proof since your claim is not "positive"? The person who claims it is toxic has to prove it is? Only severely mentally retarded and impoverished public school children who hate religion would say such a silly thing. Rather, as I explained several times, the burden of proof is on the side that challenges the "status quo." That status quo is that arsenic is toxic and any party challenging that fact has the burden of proof.

4) You can have whatever "standards" you like for what you accept or don't accept. But here's the thing : your standards and your opinion and your acceptance or lack of acceptance don't matter to the truth.

That you have no standards means that what you say doesn't matter. That I have standards shows how what I say matters.

5) Spiritual experiences are by definition subjective feelings.

They are often subjective, but not by definition. (Just saying.)

6) A person who experiences a feeling has actually experienced that feeling, whether you like it or not.

I will decide whether their experience qualifies as "spiritual" by my definition of spiritual, what with my having a standard and all, whether you like it or not.

7) I know you struggle with analogies, but this is like somebody telling you that their birthday party made them happy, and you replying "Well you may think that, but I have standards for what makes a person happy, and birthday parties just don't meet them. So no, you were not actually happy."

Happiness is indeed entirely subjective, spirituality is not. So yours is a false analogy. Furthermore, people whose definition of "happiness" is different from mine might claim that I am not "really" happy by their definition even when I disagree. This might confuse you hopelessly, but individuals can have their own definitions, even 400 different ones for 400 different people, they are just not useful definitions where general audiences are concerned, as I explained above.

8) You can feel that way if you like, but you're just making a fool of yourself again.

9) So if somebody tells me that they had a near death experience and saw their dead relatives, and therefore they know there definitely is a heaven... I'm not going to accept that this means that there actually is a real place called heaven. But absolutely that was a real spiritual experience.

If their dead relatives told them something they could not have known except by hearing from dead relatives, and that information could be verified, then that would be one sort of "spiritual" experience, if they did not learn anything at all from their experience they didn't already know, then that would be another sort of "spiritual," would it not? Notice that I have different terms for those different experiences. You still do not. One is "spiritual" the other is only "possibly" spiritual. That's how science works, since you didn't know.