RE: The attempts of the atheists are only grotesque
December 7, 2013 at 12:37 pm
(This post was last modified: December 7, 2013 at 12:38 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 7, 2013 at 1:35 am)DOS Wrote: Would you believe in my dream that I saw that night if I did not provide you any evidence of my dream. Same goes with religious stuff
Not the same thing as religious stuff at all.
If you told me you had a dream, and described it, I'd have no reason to doubt you. I wouldn't require a shred of evidence to accept that you had a dream.
Everyone has dreams. While not completely understood, they are explainable. There is known brain chemistry and brain states that associated with dreams that have been observed. Dreams are mundane occurrences, natural occurrences.
Alleged religious experiences are supposedly not mundane, not everyone has them and they are claimed to be supernatural.
If you told me that you had a supernatural religious experience, I'd have every reason to doubt your claim. Since it is not a mundane, natural occurrence, I'd require plenty of demonstrable, verifiable, repeatable evidence to support your claim.
Let's try this example of the difference in claims:
If I told you that I had a Coke and a burger for lunch, you'd probably believe me without the need for supporting evidence.
If I told you that I had a Coke and a burger for lunch in an alien spaceship in orbit around Earth, you'd expect me to provide massive amounts of evidence to support my story before you'd believe me.
See? Even you understand the difference between mundane claims and extraordinary claims, and the evidence needed to believe either.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.