|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 0:35:32 GMT
Uh... don't you think you're overreacting just a smidge? I wasn't trying to insult you, and I apologize if I did. You have to understand that whenever I've talked to Christians about my experiences, their reaction is usually, "Well, what does the Bible say about it?" I don't really care. And when I talk to atheists about my experience, their reaction is, "Well, what do the scientists and scholars say about it?" Again, don't care. Neither religion nor science has all the answers, although they certainly love to pretend that they do. I would much prefer to go exploring, to seek out the answers to my own questions, rather than having someone else tell me what to believe.I believe you weren't trying to be insulting. It just seems to come naturally to you because you do it again: You obtain your answers by seeking and exploring, while the rest of us believe what we are told to believe. Well, on page 1 of this thread, someone told me exactly that. It wasn't for me to decide what my experiences mean, but scholars of science and philosophy. Do you disagree with him?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 30, 2023 0:44:45 GMT
Human perception is highly unreliable. There are thousands of stories illustrating the unreliability of human memory and perception, its why science is based on peer review and duplication of results. IRL God needs people to build his churches, collect dues, heal the sick, write his books, spread his Word, punish sinners, and convert people; he doesn't appear to people individually, doesn't answer prayers, and doesn't give signs. It's almost like there is no god and people do all the work. As I've said to others, you're free to believe as you wish, but as for myself, I have no doubts whatsoever about my experiences. It seems like atheists typically only have two responses to spiritual experiences: 1) to find some scientific explanation to debunk it, or 2) to deny that it ever happened. It's almost like the atheist version of "heads I win, tails you lose." I've altered my behavior dramatically and response to premonitions. Sometimes my premonitions come as abstract riddles that I have to decipher, and then I have to spend a significant amount of time trying to solve them before the event happens. It's not a matter of faulty memory or perception. It is true that scientists are generally skeptical. They want evidence to support any claim. The legal profession is kind of like that; in a trial the prosecution must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a good thing, it keeps bad science (or unjust convictions) to a minimum. Just something to keep in mind when you encounter skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 1:05:21 GMT
As I've said to others, you're free to believe as you wish, but as for myself, I have no doubts whatsoever about my experiences. It seems like atheists typically only have two responses to spiritual experiences: 1) to find some scientific explanation to debunk it, or 2) to deny that it ever happened. It's almost like the atheist version of "heads I win, tails you lose." I've altered my behavior dramatically and response to premonitions. Sometimes my premonitions come as abstract riddles that I have to decipher, and then I have to spend a significant amount of time trying to solve them before the event happens. It's not a matter of faulty memory or perception. It is true that scientists are generally skeptical. They want evidence to support any claim. The legal profession is kind of like that; in a trial the prosecution must provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That's a good thing, it keeps bad science (or unjust convictions) to a minimum. Just something to keep in mind when you encounter skepticism. Sure, but we're not talking about a court of law here. I have to admit, I do find it a little offensive that people insinuate that it's all in my head and never happened. It's a pity, because there could be an interesting discussion about quantum mechanics and the nature of spacetime and the Unified Theory and all that fun stuff. But, no. Debunk or deny. Rinse, repeat. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 30, 2023 1:17:28 GMT
I believe you weren't trying to be insulting. It just seems to come naturally to you because you do it again: You obtain your answers by seeking and exploring, while the rest of us believe what we are told to believe. Well, on page 1 of this thread, someone told me exactly that. It wasn't for me to decide what my experiences mean, but scholars of science and philosophy. Do you disagree with him? I guess you mean this exchange: "Some of us probably have very un-serious and undemanding ideas for what counts as "evidence". "That's for the individual to decide. Not you." "No, that's for scholars of science and philosophy to decide. Not you."
Despite your mischaracterization, the poster did not say that it was for scholars to decide what your experiences mean, but rather, he said that scholars determine what constitutes valid evidence. Take your story in Peru. No one can presume to tell you what you must make of it. But scholars can tell you with authority that you have no valid evidence to offer to others.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 1:29:14 GMT
Well, on page 1 of this thread, someone told me exactly that. It wasn't for me to decide what my experiences mean, but scholars of science and philosophy. Do you disagree with him? I guess you mean this exchange: "Some of us probably have very un-serious and undemanding ideas for what counts as "evidence". "That's for the individual to decide. Not you." "No, that's for scholars of science and philosophy to decide. Not you."
Despite your mischaracterization, the poster did not say that it was for scholars to decide what your experiences mean, but rather, he said that scholars determine what constitutes valid evidence. Take your story in Peru. No one can presume to tell you what you must make of it. But scholars can tell you with authority that you have no valid evidence to offer to others. Who said anything about offering evidence to others? I said some people have their own evidence and reasons for believing, and he said it was up to the scholars to determine validity. I was always only talking about an individual having valid reasons to believe based on their own personal experiences. The appeals to authority just sounded very similar to what some religious people do.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 30, 2023 1:39:19 GMT
I guess you mean this exchange: "Some of us probably have very un-serious and undemanding ideas for what counts as "evidence". "That's for the individual to decide. Not you." "No, that's for scholars of science and philosophy to decide. Not you."
Despite your mischaracterization, the poster did not say that it was for scholars to decide what your experiences mean, but rather, he said that scholars determine what constitutes valid evidence. Take your story in Peru. No one can presume to tell you what you must make of it. But scholars can tell you with authority that you have no valid evidence to offer to others. Who said anything about offering evidence to others? I said some people have their own evidence and reasons for believing, and he said it was up to the scholars to determine validity. I was always only talking about an individual having valid reasons to believe based on their own personal experiences. The appeals to authority just sounded very similar to what some religious people do. If you want to call any reason to believe something "evidence", no one can stop you. But you would just be misusing a word that carries specific meaning.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 1:52:04 GMT
Who said anything about offering evidence to others? I said some people have their own evidence and reasons for believing, and he said it was up to the scholars to determine validity. I was always only talking about an individual having valid reasons to believe based on their own personal experiences. The appeals to authority just sounded very similar to what some religious people do. If you want to call any reason to believe something "evidence", no one can stop you. But you would just be misusing a word that carries specific meaning. And now we're down to arguing semantics? Great. For the record, I was not using the Law definition for the term "evidence". Evidence also means "one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true."
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 30, 2023 2:14:50 GMT
If you want to call any reason to believe something "evidence", no one can stop you. But you would just be misusing a word that carries specific meaning. And now we're down to arguing semantics? Great. For the record, I was not using the Law definition for the term "evidence". Evidence also means "one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true." "Evidence" is not confined to law. There are different criteria for legal evidence, scientific evidence, historical evidence, statistical evidence, etc. Evidence is more than just your own unshareable reason for believing something. And this was not about semantics. This, if you recall, was about your claim that a poster told you that scholars get to decide what your experiences mean.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 2:22:03 GMT
And now we're down to arguing semantics? Great. For the record, I was not using the Law definition for the term "evidence". Evidence also means "one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true." "Evidence" is not confined to law. There are different criteria for legal evidence, scientific evidence, historical evidence, statistical evidence, etc. Evidence is more than just your own unshareable reason for believing something. And this was not about semantics. This, if you recall, was about your claim that a poster told you that scholars get to decide what your experiences mean. I'm sorry, but this is boring and pointless. If you want to talk about something interesting, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 30, 2023 4:36:45 GMT
"Evidence" is not confined to law. There are different criteria for legal evidence, scientific evidence, historical evidence, statistical evidence, etc. Evidence is more than just your own unshareable reason for believing something. And this was not about semantics. This, if you recall, was about your claim that a poster told you that scholars get to decide what your experiences mean. I'm sorry, but this is boring and pointless. If you want to talk about something interesting, let me know. What he is saying is before anything can be considered miraculous, every mundane explanation that could have caused the alleged miraculous event to seem supernatural or from God needs to be exhausted. You seem convinced a miracle happened to you and apparently other witnessed it, if I'm correct. This is what I mean by "tested." When the RCC puts its approval on any miracles as potentially valid, they investigate it thoroughly because miracles can potentially be the work of Satan. I certainly would not the take the word of anyone who claims a miracle any more than I would someone who claims they were abducted by aliens or is possessed by demons...with all respect to your claim, you could be delusional. I would like to know in detail what exactly happened to you, but I understand if you don't want to share. I remember there was this Miss America winner who claimed a faith healer had lengthened one her legs...that's one of the oldest faith healer tricks in the business.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 30, 2023 8:07:35 GMT
Human perception is highly unreliable. There are thousands of stories illustrating the unreliability of human memory and perception, its why science is based on peer review and duplication of results. IRL God needs people to build his churches, collect dues, heal the sick, write his books, spread his Word, punish sinners, and convert people; he doesn't appear to people individually, doesn't answer prayers, and doesn't give signs. It's almost like there is no god and people do all the work. As I've said to others, you're free to believe as you wish, but as for myself, I have no doubts whatsoever about my experiences. It seems like atheists typically only have two responses to spiritual experiences: 1) to find some scientific explanation to debunk it, or 2) to deny that it ever happened. It's almost like the atheist version of "heads I win, tails you lose." I've altered my behavior dramatically and response to premonitions. Sometimes my premonitions come as abstract riddles that I have to decipher, and then I have to spend a significant amount of time trying to solve them before the event happens. It's not a matter of faulty memory or perception. What other response would a rational person have? Seeing things before they happen is a common thing, but you don't actually have true foresight. After an event, our brain tricks itself into believing it remembers it before it happened. To my knowledge there are no documented cases of foresight because it doesn't exist, one only 'remembers' the foresight after. Otherwise you could write it down and prove the world wrong, but no one has ever done that, to my knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 30, 2023 9:40:50 GMT
"Evidence" is not confined to law. There are different criteria for legal evidence, scientific evidence, historical evidence, statistical evidence, etc. Evidence is more than just your own unshareable reason for believing something. And this was not about semantics. This, if you recall, was about your claim that a poster told you that scholars get to decide what your experiences mean. I'm sorry, but this is boring and pointless. If you want to talk about something interesting, let me know. Then I'll just end by noting that you related to me your "experience" of what a poster's words meant to you. And you, no doubt, have your reasons, your "evidence" of how you experienced it. On the other hand, we have a preserved record of the actual conversation. That record constitutes an example of genuine evidence available to others in evaluating whether to accept your account or be skeptical of it.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 12:36:01 GMT
I'm sorry, but this is boring and pointless. If you want to talk about something interesting, let me know. What he is saying is before anything can be considered miraculous, every mundane explanation that could have caused the alleged miraculous event to seem supernatural or from God needs to be exhausted. You seem convinced a miracle happened to you and apparently other witnessed it, if I'm correct. This is what I mean by "tested." When the RCC puts its approval on any miracles as potentially valid, they investigate it thoroughly because miracles can potentially be the work of Satan. I certainly would not the take the word of anyone who claims a miracle any more than I would someone who claims they were abducted by aliens or is possessed by demons...with all respect to your claim, you could be delusional. I would like to know in detail what exactly happened to you, but I understand if you don't want to share. I remember there was this Miss America winner who claimed a faith healer had lengthened one her legs...that's one of the oldest faith healer tricks in the business. Miraculous? LOL! That's not how I see it, at all. Ecstasy is my stupid human trick. I've done it ever since I was a kid, and it was like a game or something. Some people claim to see auras (I don't), and I thought maybe the woman possibly saw that. I certainly don't see it as some extraordinary holy event. It was just ridiculous and embarrassing, and I look back on it and laugh at myself. But, to be honest, I also found it disturbing to realize just how easily cults could form. If someone has a bit of talent and an unhealthy ego, things could go very badly. That happened to me in India, too. I was doing charity work, and the entire village became obsessed with me. There are crowds of people following me around, all the time, and my crew mates were laughing that it was my cult. When we were leaving, they told me the duck down in the middle of the bus, because they thought people were going to stampede. It was pretty bizarre. Humans clearly have a tendency to flock to charismatic figures, whether religious or political or anything else, and I just found that really unsettling.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 12:38:31 GMT
As I've said to others, you're free to believe as you wish, but as for myself, I have no doubts whatsoever about my experiences. It seems like atheists typically only have two responses to spiritual experiences: 1) to find some scientific explanation to debunk it, or 2) to deny that it ever happened. It's almost like the atheist version of "heads I win, tails you lose." I've altered my behavior dramatically and response to premonitions. Sometimes my premonitions come as abstract riddles that I have to decipher, and then I have to spend a significant amount of time trying to solve them before the event happens. It's not a matter of faulty memory or perception. What other response would a rational person have? Seeing things before they happen is a common thing, but you don't actually have true foresight. After an event, our brain tricks itself into believing it remembers it before it happened. To my knowledge there are no documented cases of foresight because it doesn't exist, one only 'remembers' the foresight after. Otherwise you could write it down and prove the world wrong, but no one has ever done that, to my knowledge. Why would I want to prove it to the world?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 30, 2023 12:49:13 GMT
What he is saying is before anything can be considered miraculous, every mundane explanation that could have caused the alleged miraculous event to seem supernatural or from God needs to be exhausted. You seem convinced a miracle happened to you and apparently other witnessed it, if I'm correct. This is what I mean by "tested." When the RCC puts its approval on any miracles as potentially valid, they investigate it thoroughly because miracles can potentially be the work of Satan. I certainly would not the take the word of anyone who claims a miracle any more than I would someone who claims they were abducted by aliens or is possessed by demons...with all respect to your claim, you could be delusional. I would like to know in detail what exactly happened to you, but I understand if you don't want to share. I remember there was this Miss America winner who claimed a faith healer had lengthened one her legs...that's one of the oldest faith healer tricks in the business. Miraculous? LOL! That's not how I see it, at all. Ecstasy is my stupid human trick. I've done it ever since I was a kid, and it was like a game or something. Some people claim to see auras (I don't), and I thought maybe the woman possibly saw that. I certainly don't see it as some extraordinary holy event. It was just ridiculous and embarrassing, and I look back on it and laugh at myself. But, to be honest, I also found it disturbing to realize just how easily cults could form. If someone has a bit of talent and an unhealthy ego, things could go very badly. That happened to me in India, too. I was doing charity work, and the entire village became obsessed with me. There are crowds of people following me around, all the time, and my crew mates were laughing that it was my cult. When we were leaving, they told me the duck down in the middle of the bus, because they thought people were going to stampede. It was pretty bizarre. Humans clearly have a tendency to flock to charismatic figures, whether religious or political or anything else, and I just found that really unsettling. Well, that’s interesting. Are you exceptionally pretty?
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 30, 2023 15:19:47 GMT
Basically, you atheists are here thinking you are showing some kind of intellectual superiority over believers, when in actuality all you show is ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 30, 2023 16:22:11 GMT
Basically, you atheists are here thinking you are showing some kind of intellectual superiority over believers, when in actuality all you show is ignorance. Yeah, right.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 30, 2023 17:37:00 GMT
Basically, you atheists are here thinking you are showing some kind of intellectual superiority over believers, when in actuality all you show is ignorance. The irony in this statement, is incredible.
|
|
|
Post by mystery on Jan 30, 2023 19:02:08 GMT
Miraculous? LOL! That's not how I see it, at all. Ecstasy is my stupid human trick. I've done it ever since I was a kid, and it was like a game or something. Some people claim to see auras (I don't), and I thought maybe the woman possibly saw that. I certainly don't see it as some extraordinary holy event. It was just ridiculous and embarrassing, and I look back on it and laugh at myself. But, to be honest, I also found it disturbing to realize just how easily cults could form. If someone has a bit of talent and an unhealthy ego, things could go very badly. That happened to me in India, too. I was doing charity work, and the entire village became obsessed with me. There are crowds of people following me around, all the time, and my crew mates were laughing that it was my cult. When we were leaving, they told me the duck down in the middle of the bus, because they thought people were going to stampede. It was pretty bizarre. Humans clearly have a tendency to flock to charismatic figures, whether religious or political or anything else, and I just found that really unsettling. Well, that’s interesting. Are you exceptionally pretty? Eh. Most people call me striking rather than pretty. I don't seem to blend in very well.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 30, 2023 21:06:26 GMT
Basically, you atheists are here thinking you are showing some kind of intellectual superiority over believers, when in actuality all you show is ignorance. The irony in this statement, is incredible. Skeptics need to be right every day, but believers only need to be right once.
|
|