(July 19, 2022 at 2:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(July 18, 2022 at 4:34 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: But should personal testimony actually be considered good enough by anyone, is the question? Even to those claim to have had one?


People have "personal testimony" for an almost endless number of supernatural claims: various mutually exclusive gods, witches, UFO abductions, encounters with bigfoot, encounters with Jinn, ghosts, zombies, exorcisms, etc, etc, etc.

Most of the people that have some of these 'personal experiences', will understand that most of the other of these claims should not be believed based on the peroneal experience of others, many times because they are rightfully skeptical, and understand the unreliability of peroneal experiences. "My personal experience with my specific god is absolutely true... but come on, alien abductions. Let's be serious."

Well, you believe nearly all of the personal experiences you have every day. Unless you're probing the sidewalk in front of you to make sure it's not a hologram, or double checking the produce at the supermarket to check that it's not an illusion. 

Yes, because that is the world I am presented with, and those things are completely mundane. And all those people that claim personal experience with a god, also experience the sidewalk and produce in the same way I do. A Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Jain, Zoroastrian, atheist, etc, etc, etc, all experience sidewalks and produce in almost the exact same way, because we all agree we share a reality.

But atheists and skeptics, do our best not to add things that are not in evidence in our shared reality. Especially things that rely on personal testimony, because of the inherent unreliability of personal testimony. After all, more than 50% of the people miss the obvious in this video:





And as I have said multiple times, people of many religions claim to have personal experiences with their god, yet they themselves do not believe when someone of another religion claims to have had a personal experience with their god. Anyone with just a modicum or critical thinking skills should question their own personal testimony.

Quote:As I've said a couple of times now, we hold up our experiences, or the claimed experiences of others, against a pre-determined set of things we hold to be possible. And if the interpretation of the experience falls outside those boundaries, we reject it. 

Your boundaries are clear. Other people's are different. The point I was making is that you use these boundaries and standards in your continuing position as an atheist. These beliefs -- that certain kinds of testimony should be dismissed -- are essential to your atheism.

I haven't ruled out the possibility of the existence of gods, or other supernatural claim. I am open to demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic to support the existence of gods. Has any ever been presented?

Yes, my boundaries are clear, because I don't want to be a credulous, gullible fool.

If I claim to have tied my shoes this morning, it's reasonable to take my word for it. We know shoes, shoe laces, and people with hands and feet who tie their shoes exist. Absent confounding knowledge (you know I don't have feet, or that I'm a bot, for instance) the claim is mundane, trivial, and inconsequential. I could be lying about it but why? And if I am lying about it, so what?

If I claim to have cooked my oatmeal this morning with superman-like heat vision, that's another matter. It seems contrary to biology, physics, and me being human. You shouldn't take my word for it. In fact, you shouldn't believe me without conclusive evidence. It's not a mundane, trivial, or inconsequential claim. It's an outlandish one and should be treated with a high level of skepticism.

(July 19, 2022 at 7:19 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There's only one thing essential to anyones atheism, and you've been here long enough to know that, though it's obviously frustrated you the entire time.

Indeed. Belief that the proposition "God(s) exist" is false.

(July 19, 2022 at 11:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 7:19 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There's only one thing essential to anyones atheism, and you've been here long enough to know that, though it's obviously frustrated you the entire time.

Indeed. Belief that the proposition "God(s) exist" is false.

Your statement is bullshit:

Wikipedia -- Spectrum of theistic probability

(July 19, 2022 at 12:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If I claim to have tied my shoes this morning, it's reasonable to take my word for it. We know shoes, shoe laces, and people with hands and feet who tie their shoes exist. Absent confounding knowledge (you know I don't have feet, or that I'm a bot, for instance) the claim is mundane, trivial, and inconsequential. I could be lying about it but why? And if I am lying about it, so what?

If I claim to have cooked my oatmeal this morning with superman-like heat vision, that's another matter. It seems contrary to biology, physics, and me being human. You shouldn't take my word for it. In fact, you shouldn't believe me without conclusive evidence. It's not a mundane, trivial, or inconsequential claim. It's an outlandish one and should be treated with a high level of skepticism.

Sure. And you point is well taken. At the same time this is a personal and subject judgement about how much and what kind of warrant is required to justify any given belief.

(July 19, 2022 at 11:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 7:19 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There's only one thing essential to anyones atheism, and you've been here long enough to know that, though it's obviously frustrated you the entire time.

Indeed. Belief that the proposition "God(s) exist" is false.

How or why is it that after all of this time, and the vast majority of atheists that you've ever interacted with on this board telling you flat out that they wouldn't call it true or false, but inconclusive...and seeing them disagree, bluntly, with those few who would affirm that statement....that you still insist on this?

Why is it important..to you, and what argument do you wish applied to atheism in total that you think applies to it?

(July 19, 2022 at 11:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 11:20 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Indeed. Belief that the proposition "God(s) exist" is false.

Your statement is bullshit:

Wikipedia -- Spectrum of theistic probability

Please, tell me why I am wrong in your own words. Is there any atheist who does not believe that the proposition "God(s) exist is false? And how could the term atheist apply meaningfully to anyone not taking that stance?

And with all due respect this is the second time you have replied to me simply by giving me a link, as if saying to me, you'd agree with me if only you educated yourself. Hopefully, I am wrong about that. You seem like an otherwise nice person, but I find the "here's a link explaining everything" Wiki-reply a bit condesending. And it is also a conversation stopper, because I am not about to post a reply to a Wikipedia article. I generally avoid Wikipedia, preffering to read original sources when I can.

(July 19, 2022 at 11:29 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 12:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If I claim to have tied my shoes this morning, it's reasonable to take my word for it. We know shoes, shoe laces, and people with hands and feet who tie their shoes exist. Absent confounding knowledge (you know I don't have feet, or that I'm a bot, for instance) the claim is mundane, trivial, and inconsequential. I could be lying about it but why? And if I am lying about it, so what?

If I claim to have cooked my oatmeal this morning with superman-like heat vision, that's another matter. It seems contrary to biology, physics, and me being human. You shouldn't take my word for it. In fact, you shouldn't believe me without conclusive evidence. It's not a mundane, trivial, or inconsequential claim. It's an outlandish one and should be treated with a high level of skepticism.

Sure. And you point is well taken. At the same time this is a personal and subject judgement about how much and what kind of warrant is required to justify any given belief.

"He loves me... he loves me not". (Old French game)

"Do you feel lucky, punk?" (Dirty Harry)

(July 19, 2022 at 11:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 11:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Your statement is bullshit:

Wikipedia -- Spectrum of theistic probability

Please, tell me why I am wrong in your own words. Is there any atheist who does not believe that the proposition "God(s) exist is false? And how could the term atheist apply meaningfully to anyone not taking that stance?

And with all due respect this is the second time you have replied to me simply by giving me a link, as if saying to me, you'd agree with me if only you educated yourself. Hopefully, I am wrong about that. You seem like an otherwise nice person, but I find the "here's a link explaining everything" Wiki-reply a bit condesending. And it is also a conversation stopper, because I am not about to post a reply to a Wikipedia article. I generally avoid Wikipedia, preffering to read original sources when I can.

With respect to the proposition "There is a God", I do not know. God may exist or not, and therefore, I do not know, and therefore, am an agnostic. In light of my agnosticism, I, as a human being, have made a conscious choice to suspend judgment on the question, and therefore, have an absence of belief in a God, which makes me an a-theist ("not theist"), as in atypical ("not typical").

(July 19, 2022 at 11:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 19, 2022 at 11:25 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Your statement is bullshit:

Wikipedia -- Spectrum of theistic probability

Please, tell me why I am wrong in your own words. Is there any atheist who does not believe that the proposition "God(s) exist is false? And how could the term atheist apply meaningfully to anyone not taking that stance?

And with all due respect this is the second time you have replied to me simply by giving me a link, as if saying to me, you'd agree with me if only you educated yourself. Hopefully, I am wrong about that. You seem like an otherwise nice person, but I find the "here's a link explaining everything" Wiki-reply a bit condesending. And it is also a conversation stopper, because I am not about to post a reply to a Wikipedia article. I generally avoid Wikipedia, preffering to read original sources when I can.

They have told you, many times.  They've disagreed with me about the justifications for affirming that stance..many times.