Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jobar · 01-21-2003, 07:29 PM

Ah, I have to agree with luvluv that this thread is losing its focus on the central topic. I think there are several topics that might profitably be spun off this one, but let's not try to discuss them here, hm?

With that said though luvluv, yes, we *do* expect you to be able to at least attempt to answer every single objection we may have to the existence of god(s). You did say you aspire to be an apologist, after all.

And besides, we committed atheists and unbelievers are usually expected to have a counter for every single argument for God. If there is one single argument we cannot answer, or at least show to be inconclusive, we have to call ourselves agnostics!

Now, mod hat doffed, I want to see what we can agree on. Luvluv, you say, in reference to our certainty that your experiences are all internally generated-

This is still an irrational belief, from the evidentialist's view, because you do not have evidence that my specific claims are false. Your only option is to remain in doubt of my claims; to declare them false would require evidence contrary to my claim. You SHOULD doubt me, but you seemingly cannot resist making the further step... a leap of faith to the positive claim that my beliefs are false. This betrays an irrational disdain for the propriety of evidentiary support.

Well, I don't think anyone has claimed we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, *to you*, that your God-experiences are all internal and not external. Similarly, we can't absolutely prove God's non-existence.

However- you have done not a single thing to demonstrate that your point of view (that God, creator and master of the universe, communicates regularly with you, inside your head) has the slightest bit of 'truth value' for any other person in the world.

Is that a fair statement? That you are not claiming your personal experience constitutes evidence for EoG, for any person but you?

All you have done is to tell us that we have not absolutely proven our own point. (Despite all the very strong arguments we have put forward, none of which you have refuted at all.)

Luvluv... look, speaking personally, this thread has increased my respect for you as a person. Your universalist leanings, your almost flawless grace under pressure, your high literacy and persistence, all indicate to me that you are a person I would be happy to call friend in real life. But now, after reading this thread, I am even more firmly convinced that you are deluded, and your mind is captive to a powerful and harmful meme which blinds you to its own nasty effects.

I doubt that a single unbeliever following this thread would say any different. As an apologist to us atheists, your efforts have all been counter productive.

Family Man · 01-21-2003, 08:18 PM

Edited to remove a thought that has already been answered.

Family Man · 01-21-2003, 08:58 PM

Quote:

There is nothing in what you said that invalidates the theory that you are experiencing a self-fulfilling prophecy in claiming that my beliefs are the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're the perfect example in my opinion. The only evidence I need is that you hold, or the society around you holds, the belief that God does not exist. Theoretically, it is possible that you are right and I'm wrong, but unless you can provide uncontrovertible evidence that my experiences are not real events, I must conclude that your belief that I am experiencing a self-fulfilling prophecy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Simply reversing what I had to say isn't going to work, Luvluv, for two reasons. First, we don't live in a society where we're constantly being bombarded with the notion that God doesn't exist. In fact, those of us who say such things tend to get dumped on rather heavily by believers (see the Strumming for Jesus thread in S&SL for an example). Second, all I'm saying is that I think what you credit to God is in reality just the thoughts everyone has everyday. I make no special claims as you do. There is nothing to build a self-fulfilling prophecy around.

Quote:

YOU. ARE. NOT. MAKING. A. NEGATIVE. CLAIM.

You are making the POSITIVE CLAIM that my beliefs are the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

True. And I demonstrated that it must be so given the belief system in our culture. You've really done nothing but insist that your personal experience tells us it is not, but as you admit, your personal experience can't be trusted. Hence, I don't see a counter-argument.

Quote:

A negative "claim" if there is such a thing, would be you saying that you don't believe that my experiences were real. If you said that, I'd have no problem with your position.

You are going a step further. You are making the COUNTER claim, the TRUTH claim: "Luvluv's experiences are NOT real."

No, I'm not. I making the claim that because of the very real possibility that we have a self-fulfilling prophecy here, we must heavily discount those personal experiences. If you choose to believe that they are real, it's your life. I don't believe they are for reasons stated.

Quote:

You need no evidence to doubt my experienes, but you do need evidence to make the truth claim: Luvluv's experiences aren't real.

I'm not, and never have, relied on evidence to doubt your claims. I need no evidence to doubt your claims. I doubt them on the basis of the fallacy I've repeatedly pointed out.

Quote:

FURTHER you actually DIAGNOSED my experience from a psychological standpoint (are you a qualified psychologist, by the way?). Now this is CERTAINLY a claim that cannot be justified without evidence. I can safely say that you don't have any, since you don't know me. You certainly don't have enough to make a clinical diagnosis from the little information I have given you.

I have done no such thing. I have challenged an obviously cherished belief of yours on the basis that it is logically flawed. I've made no comment on your psychological state that I'm aware of.

Quote:

As an inference from other posts of yours I've read, I'm going to doubt that this is actually the case. Your initial post does not seem "indifferent" to me.

The opening post was hostile to the idea that personal experience is worth anything as evidence for God. Nothing more.

Quote:

As an inference from other posts of yours I've read, I'm going to doubt that this is actually the case. Your initial post does not seem "indifferent" to me.

You must demonstrate how that is so. It is not enough to merely claim it. Let me point out the difference to you: You believe that God speaks to you, you think you hear messages from God, but you can't give a solid reason why anyone should you believe you. I don't believe that anyone gets messages from God, but I can give a solid reason why I believe so. That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, that's logic.

Quote:

As an inference from other posts of yours I've read, I'm going to doubt that this is actually the case. Your initial post does not seem "indifferent" to me.

In this area, you are free to feel what you wish.

Quote:

Family Man, the only thing I understand is that you aren't really paying enough attention to the distinctions I've been trying to make between my experiences and the ones you guys have been countering with.

Of course, you have a concious. Of course, your concious speaks to you about things you already know to be wrong. It's wrong to string a woman along and hurt her, everyone knows that. I have pangs of conscious all the time too, and I don't ascribe them to God.

What, however, does that have to do with being told things like not to leave a certain area, when there's NOTHING morally wrong about leaving, and being rewarded with an incredible relationship for harking to that voice?

What does that have to do with DECLINING opportunities for wealth, when there is NOTHING (or very little) morally wrong with taking them, and then finding later that you are much happier with the way your life has turned out?

My experiences are unique because they involve THINGS I COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY KNOWN. And you are really judging by a biased sample.

First, I posted that story because you had talked about giving things up because your voice questioned the moral choice of doing that. If I misunderstood, I apologized but that is what I understood.

But even then, I've had similar experiences in my life. I got my current job because I decided to hang around to talk to someone who had helped me before. I had no expectation that waiting around would result in a job, but it did; in fact, logically it shouldn't have. Nothing you've posted strikes me as being so unique that it would lead anyone to conclude that a god had anything to do with it other than the way you phrased it. I really doubt that you could post a story that I couldn't find a parallel for in my own life.

Luvluv, I'm not expecting you to agree with me. But I would hope you could understand why I feel the way I do.

Family Man · 01-21-2003, 09:08 PM

Quote:

You are operating on the assumption that God does not exist, and interpreting all your data from that standpoint.

In my case, that is incorrect. I work under the assumption that God must be shown to exist. I ask myself, does anyone's personal experience sufficient reason to assume that God does exist. For reasons stated, I have to say no.

I repeat, Luvluv: I try to approach this question as objectively as I can. If shown a persuasive argument, I would become a believer in a minute.

Family Man · 01-21-2003, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch
luvluv, there's no polite way to engage your last comments line-by-line. So let me just recap the things I have actually defended, as opposed to the various views you seem to have confabulated on my behalf.

1) You claim to detect, by personal experience, the influence of a god in some events in your life.

2) There is a large and empirically well-founded scientific literature demonstrating the propensity of people to read significance into chance events, and excessive significance into non-chance but simply explicable events.

3) My knowledge of this literature constitutes powerful (though of course defeasible) inductive warrant of the sort universally employed in science, to conclude that you are mistaken about the significance you claim to detect in these events.

4) While it is conceivable that I am somehow biased against the detection of divine influence in my life, there is no large and empirically well-founded scientific literature demonstrating the propensity of people to read too little significance into events.

5) Hence, while I certainly would not rule out the possibility, you have no comparable grounds for believing that I am mistaken in not seeing divine influence in the events of my life.

Clutch, that was wonderful. You've said it much better than I have.:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Family Man · 01-21-2003, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
Luvluv... look, speaking personally, this thread has increased my respect for you as a person. Your universalist leanings, your almost flawless grace under pressure, your high literacy and persistence, all indicate to me that you are a person I would be happy to call friend in real life.

Well, his last reply to me was a bit hard on me personally, but I generally agree with this sentiment.

Quote:

But now, after reading this thread, I am even more firmly convinced that you are deluded, and your mind is captive to a powerful and harmful meme which blinds you to its own nasty effects.

I really wish there was another term other than deluded that we could use. I don't believe that Luvluv's beliefs are harmful -- at least in his case. But I do think that the interpretation that he is getting "messages from God" isn't reality either. I've been struggling for a term I'm happy with -- something that isn't as strongly negatively connotated as deluded -- but have come up empty so far.

Quote:

I doubt that a single unbeliever following this thread would say any different. As an apologist to us atheists, your efforts have all been counter productive.

I think he's been entirely ineffective in countering the objections we've raised against personal experience as evidence.

Hawkingfan · 01-22-2003, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
Prayer is not a magic wand. God does actually have a say in whether or not He gives you something you ask for. He may actually have a good reason for granting the prayers He does grant and for not granting those He doesn't. Your parents probably said no to your requests once or twice, too. (I would hope).

There is plenty of room in the Christian worldview for unanswered prayer. It's consistent with my belief that God is benevolent that He would not give me something that was bad for me just because I prayed for it. I think we've all prayed for things that we are glad we didn't receive. You guys are dealing with the weakest possible examples of what actually constitutes religious experience. Lets try tackling the most difficult problems with our philosophies, instead of knocking down strawmen.

Your view contradicts scripture.
John 14:13--"And I will do whatever you ask in my name."
John 14:14--"You may ask for anything in my name, and I will do it."
John 15:7--"...ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you."
John 15:16--"Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."
John 16:23--"I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name."
John 16:24--"Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete."
Matthew 7:7--"Ask and it will be given you,"
Matthew 7:8--"For everyone who asks receives;"
Mark 11:24--"whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

The list goes on and on. Jesus is speaking in absolutes (whatever you ask, everyone who asks, etc.)
Also, you said God answers "no" because he has other plans. But,
Romans 8:25--"But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently." And verse 26--"We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will."
So this clearly shows that one will not even ask God for something they shouldn't. Yet prayers are answered "no".

Donald Morgan said it best when he said, "If one can change the mind of God, then God is not sovereign. If one cannot change the mind of God, then prayer is superfluous." Amen!

Echo · 01-22-2003, 07:36 AM

I'm still not clear on how to tell the difference between

A) Prayers that reach the intended recipient but are answered with a "no."

B) Prayers that reach the intended recipient but are ignored or go unanswered.

and

C) Prayers that never reach the intended recipient because said recipient does not exist.

Clutch · 01-22-2003, 08:35 AM

Family Man, thanks.

Quote:

I really wish there was another term other than deluded that we could use.

I've been using "mistaken". Besides being strictly accurate, this expresses the generality of the error in reasoning. Ie, I am similarly mistaken when I am drawn into the myth of the "hot hand", or when I overlook regression effects in assessing the effectiveness of something I've done. But I don't think I'm deluded in these cases -- just wrong.

rdalin · 01-22-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
There is nothing in what you said that invalidates the theory that you are experiencing a self-fulfilling prophecy in claiming that my beliefs are the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy. You're the perfect example in my opinion. The only evidence I need is that you hold, or the society around you holds, the belief that God does not exist. Theoretically, it is possible that you are right and I'm wrong, but unless you can provide uncontrovertible evidence that my experiences are not real events, I must conclude that your belief that I am experiencing a self-fulfilling prophecy is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But then, your contentions of your own experiences not being the result of God's intervention are just what I would expect from someone who is suffering from a self-fulfilling prophecy that all religious experiences are self-fulfilling prophecies.

After reading through almost all of this thread, I have concluded that you don't seem to know what a self-fulfilling prophecy actually is. Here's a good explanation: once an expectation is set, even if it isn't accurate or realistic, people tend to act in ways that are consistent with that expectation. From my standpoint, I think that those who accuse you of behaving in this way are correct; regardless, your critics, whether they're right or wrong, aren't prophecying anything.

Richard

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-21-2003, 07:29 PM	#101
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Ah, I have to agree with luvluv that this thread is losing its focus on the central topic. I think there are several topics that might profitably be spun off this one, but let's not try to discuss them here, hm? With that said though luvluv, yes, we do expect you to be able to at least attempt to answer every single objection we may have to the existence of god(s). You did say you aspire to be an apologist, after all. And besides, we committed atheists and unbelievers are usually expected to have a counter for every single argument for God. If there is one single argument we cannot answer, or at least show to be inconclusive, we have to call ourselves agnostics! Now, mod hat doffed, I want to see what we can agree on. Luvluv, you say, in reference to our certainty that your experiences are all internally generated- This is still an irrational belief, from the evidentialist's view, because you do not have evidence that my specific claims are false. Your only option is to remain in doubt of my claims; to declare them false would require evidence contrary to my claim. You SHOULD doubt me, but you seemingly cannot resist making the further step... a leap of faith to the positive claim that my beliefs are false. This betrays an irrational disdain for the propriety of evidentiary support. Well, I don't think anyone has claimed we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, to you, that your God-experiences are all internal and not external. Similarly, we can't absolutely prove God's non-existence. However- you have done not a single thing to demonstrate that your point of view (that God, creator and master of the universe, communicates regularly with you, inside your head) has the slightest bit of 'truth value' for any other person in the world. Is that a fair statement? That you are not claiming your personal experience constitutes evidence for EoG, for any person but you? All you have done is to tell us that we have not absolutely proven our own point. (Despite all the very strong arguments we have put forward, none of which you have refuted at all.) Luvluv... look, speaking personally, this thread has increased my respect for you as a person. Your universalist leanings, your almost flawless grace under pressure, your high literacy and persistence, all indicate to me that you are a person I would be happy to call friend in real life. But now, after reading this thread, I am even more firmly convinced that you are deluded, and your mind is captive to a powerful and harmful meme which blinds you to its own nasty effects. I doubt that a single unbeliever following this thread would say any different. As an apologist to us atheists, your efforts have all been counter productive.

01-21-2003, 08:18 PM	#102
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Edited to remove a thought that has already been answered.

01-22-2003, 07:36 AM	#108
Echo Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winter Park, Fl USA Posts: 411	I'm still not clear on how to tell the difference between A) Prayers that reach the intended recipient but are answered with a "no." B) Prayers that reach the intended recipient but are ignored or go unanswered. and C) Prayers that never reach the intended recipient because said recipient does not exist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.