Experiencing 'proof'

[Cyberman]

To be fair, if two 'billion' <spit> people shared the same experience, it might be indicative of something. Ergotism, perhaps, or some kind of mental psychosis on an unprecedented scale. The real question is, have we actually got two 'billion' <shudder> people who can be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to have actually shared anything like this stuff?

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be the trouble, wouldn't it. I think the most unfying thing that could possibly be said of this particular group of people is that they belong to the same book club. Everything else is chaos.

[Simon Moon]

If two billion people have the same experience, science should take note. If two billion people believe the Holy Spirit has communicated to them the truth about Jesus Christ, he is not at all on the level of a fairy tale creature, nor does he bear full burden of proof.

First of all, I doubt all 2 billion Christians claim that the 'Holy Spirit' has communicated with them.

There are 1 billion Hindus. Many of them claim to have communicated with their god.

Do you give their personal experiences any credence?

[Strongbad]

If two billion people believe the Holy Spirit has communicated to them the truth about Jesus Christ, he is not at all on the level of a fairy tale creature, nor does he bear full burden of proof.

At least 10,000 people think this kook in Siberia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vissarion

is Jesus returned to Earth. I guess if another 1,990,000,000 people join them, he will in fact BE Jesus, right? At a minimum, with his current number of adherents, he has at least risen above the level of fairy tale, so his "burden of proof" must be declining, by your logic.

[mr.atheist]

If two billion other people had the same experience with the same dragon, would you call that strong or weak evidence for its existence?

1. Argumentum ad populum (look it up)
2. I don't know of any like-minded group anywhere in the world that numbers anywhere remotely close to 2 billion.
3. VERY VERY few christians or muslims for that matter, claim to converse with god directly (two persons talking). The percentage has got to be somewhere under .0000001 percent. The reason: even you silly sheep deem people who claim to hear god talking to them bat shit crazy.
4. The odds of Mr. Atheist actually meeting and talking to a dragon are actually slightly better than him having a daily conversation with the almighty creator of the universe in his bedroom in the hopes that some day he's going to see hundreds of thousands of souls flying through the air to meet that god's zombie son floating just above the ground with 10,000 angels playing the brass section in the background.


Geez just writing that last one makes you all seem stupider.

Yeah the odds probably are ha ha.

---

Personal experience does not count as evidence,I could say I see a dragon in my bedroom and it talks to me and gives me advice it says it loves me. And I would say that is my personal experience does that prove that dragons exist ?

If two billion other people had the same experience with the same dragon, would you call that strong or weak evidence for its existence?

Also I would just like to add that many claim to of seen Jesus and other religious figures but it is still not evidence.Personal experience is not evidence.Though I suppose it is to the religious as it reinforces there delusions even further and it goes from just naively believing in something to convincing themselves that the delusions they are having is true and it further proves their religious views to be right.

And I am not saying that all religious people are mad our brains are wired to recognize faces and hear sounds as voices.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I wouldn't imagine that they were all a few bricks short of a load..but the ones who are -certain- that a god is engaging them in conversation or directly communicating with them somehow.....yeah...those people have completely lost their shit. What keeps a person like this from having a conversation with their shoelaces? Why don't these people overhear the heated debates that lamp-posts have on the subject of morality? Does their belt prefer denim or polyester?

[Drich]

If you don't want it, or if your one of those who can't worship a God that does not accept your morality/you for who you are then know I am not speaking to you.

Apparently, you don't know how the message board, in the public domain works, do you? You see, when you start a new public thread, you are speaking to everyone who comes across this thread. The OP establishes that you are the speaker, and we are your audience.

If you don't like that, if you don't like us as an audience, if you can't deal with getting multiple responses that you don't want because you can't defend your position or make a convincing argument, then I advise you send private messages to people.

..And appearently you do not understand how a conversation works. If person A and I are 3 or 4 posts into a conversation and person b decides to only read the last post, and from his position of ignorance decides he has everything figured out and can not help himself but to plop down his hasty secular reasoning in lew of an informed post, then I have absolutly every right in this "public domain" to remind person b (or c for that matter) that the comments he has addressed were not meant for him. I can also go on to remind that person that everything I say does not apply to everyone. If I quote the person, then the post I quoted is directed to that person specifically. If what I said to person A does not apply to you then you (just in the way of common courtesy) should have nothing to say in return. That does not mean if what I said does apply to you, you can not jump in. Or if I make an open post that is not addressed to anyone then I welcome all view point (even if it does not apply.)

---

. If two billion people believe the Holy Spirit has communicated to them the truth about Jesus Christ, he is not at all on the level of a fairy tale creature, nor does he bear full burden of proof.

So I guess that when billions believed that the Earth was flat we actually lived on a pancake.

Their is a stark difference between what people believe, and what people have directly experienced. This thread is speaking to the experiences of the followers of God, as proof to them that God exists. You are mudding the waters intentionally.

[Angrboda]

I finally acquired a copy of the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia which Drich appealed to as backing for his use of the term 'propaganda'. Not much new, but still worth quoting; bolding is my emphasis. (Quoted in full.)

Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience. LOBBYING, advertising, and missionary activity are all forms of propaganda, but the term is most commonly used in the political arena. Prior to the 20th century, pictures and the written media were the principal instruments of propaganda; radio, television, motion pictures, and the Internet later joined their ranks. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes use propaganda to win and keep the support of the populace. In wartime, propaganda directed by a country at its own civilian population and military forces can boost morale; propaganda aimed at the enemy is an element of PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, you have all of those "rights". But lets consider those "rights" for a moment......

If you make some claim to person A, and person B disagrees with this claim...what about mentioning that it wasn't for them addresses their criticism? Would you make some -other- claim to person B instead? Is that the problem? I'd call that a problem with the claim, not person a or person b's subsequent comments. Is person b's "hasty secular reasoning" actually grounds for dismissal..more specifically, is simply the claim that their "secular reasoning" is "hasty" or a substitute for an "informed post" grounds for dismissal? I think not. If this sort of thing is how you plan on having conversations with people (or responding to their objections) then you're probably having more of a conversation with yourself. Which is, of course, a "right" you hold.

[Minimalist]

they all seemed to be based on the idea that my experience is my experience, or that a dream is not to be considered experience, etc.. The bigger picture here has nothing to do with what I have experienced, as this is what God taylored for me.

Multiple overlapping delusions, Drippy. You need some time with a mental health professional.... and maybe some strong meds.