"Because it feels real" "Because god spoke to me" "Because I've met god" "Just because" "God's real. simple"

I think we've heard them all. Do you have something original frodo?

(March 13, 2009 at 9:12 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(March 13, 2009 at 8:49 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: And before this discussion goes further, I think it's worth pointing out that if anyone has any personal experiences of their own, may they not be ridiculed.

Give me one good reason why not.

Because to see their experience as invalid because you cannot comprehend it shows ignorance on your part.

(April 2, 2009 at 7:55 am)twawki Wrote:

(March 13, 2009 at 9:12 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(March 13, 2009 at 8:49 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: And before this discussion goes further, I think it's worth pointing out that if anyone has any personal experiences of their own, may they not be ridiculed.

Give me one good reason why not.

Because to see their experience as invalid because you cannot comprehend it shows ignorance on your part.

That is not the issue. athoughtfulman claimed you are not allowed to ridicule a personal experience, and that is just not true. You are and you can.

Agreed. If most of us didn't ridicule or analyze our own religious experiences in the past we would not be atheists.

If I didn't analyze or ridicule my own religious experiences I wouldn't be a Christian.

---

@EvF: the point of belief isn't a choice between equals. It's a process of rationalisation leading to a conclusion of an absolute stance one way or the other. It takes a lot of positive affirmation on the side of belief to tempt a person into considering switching sides to theism.

The positives to be gained from switching are very far removed from trivial or and derogatory analysis that you've made. None of those reasons are about superstition or make believe, but sound, solid benefits. A delusion is something 2 dimensional when compared to the complexity of belief.

'Existance', as you need to prove it, misses the point entirely, and should be the subject of a different discussion. It's mixed in here because you confuse science with religion on this topic.

Ridicule was the wrong word. I retract my previous statement. Critical analysis of one's experience is needed, especially when one is looking for a rational understanding of what happens during an experience. I simply meant that we should avoid 'making fun' of someone's religious experiences. But as far as pulling an experience apart for the sake of critical analysis, I am completely for it.

At the same time, most people are not ready to critically analyse their religious experiences and hence will continue to believe regardless of what people tell them or argue. Even if the best thing for society would be to get rid of religion, I hardly think we would ever accomplish the task. However, I wouldn't be an atheist if I hadn't looked at my own religious experiences.

What christians need to realise is that personal experience is invalid evidence; it proves nothing and never will. It's completely personal, and should remain that way without them trying to push it onto everyone else.

(April 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If I didn't analyze or ridicule my own religious experiences I wouldn't be a Christian.

There's a reason why personal experience cannot be counted as "fact" or indeed taken seriously ... this is because there is no possible way (at our present technological levels) of validating that experience. Given that you are unable to verify them (or even subject some of those experiences, the supposedly predicative ones, to test) the most objective stance to take on such "experiences" is that you are either imagining them, reinterpreting them after the event or lying ... from an objective POV they simply didn't happen (or rather they are an interesting claim with absolutely no validity).

Kyu

I think also that the person in question should take the same stance. Too often I've taken the opinion that someone's personal experience is something that only they can verify. However unless the person in question can verify their own personal experience as valid, then there is not one shred of evidence available to the person experiencing or to other persons, that what they experienced was real. Unless we take such a viewpoint, then our own personal experiences will drag us away from reason and clear thinking.

We always seem to come back to this line about proof. I'm certainly not saying proof is possible, I'd hope you get that by now. So where does this leave your contentions? Groundless it would seem.

(April 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We always seem to come back to this line about proof. I'm certainly not saying proof is possible, I'd hope you get that by now. So where does this leave your contentions? Groundless it would seem.

You may not be claiming it but the standard method of establishing something is evidence based, each and every claim is assessed by that method ... if you want to make a claim that is excepted from those standards or rules then you must make a special case for it. That we (and I am not the only one) have continued to argue that you haven't made that case essentially means your argument is special pleading. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

Kyu