luvluv

Clutch:

The warrant you can glean from that type of broad inferential support could only lead you to DOUBT my claims. Declaring them factually mistaken is ahead of the evidence. I'm not an evidentialist, quite obviously, but I do chaffe when people are so dogmatic about my leaps of faith and do not at all question theirs. You cannot say that my claims are mistaken without direct evidence that my claims are mistaken.

Why is it so hard for you to simply DOUBT my claim? Would that leave the door too far ajar?

I have to believe that whatever "evidence" this literature has in this point would have to be based on logical fallacies. Just how does science "measure" signifigance? How would science objectively declare one event to have more signifigance than another event? What is signifigance measured in? Calories? Joules? How does a scientist look at an event in a person's life and deem it "insignificant" when that person says that the event was signifigant? No signifigant event in our emotional and spiritual lives has effects that can be measured with any accuracy or authority by science. This is again a case to me of science believing itself to be capable of answering questions it simply has no capacity to answer.

That could very likely be because, IMO, the people who are likely to conduct such studies are precisely the people to whom it would apply. A person likely to conduct such a study would likely be a person like you, who is already convinced that too many people put too much signifigance in events that have no signifigance.

Further, this assumes that science has some accurate way of determining signifigance, a notion which gets even more absurd once the SOA argument is brought into the picture. How would science be able to guard against an event which works through a sort of chaos theory, which could have signifigantly good effects on someone totally unknown to the person having the religious experience years down the road? I can remember being really inspired by a message written in graffiti in the hall of an apartment I used to live in. The message must have been written there years before I read it. Now suppose the artist had reported to a scientist that God told Him to write that graffitti. How, exactly, would that scientist determine that this event was "signifigant" or not? Would he leave a sentry there to observe the graffitti from now throughout eternity?

I have better grounds.

I have had these experiences. I have staked my life on them. While I am not totally accurate in comprehending these messages, they have yet to fail me in any way comparable to how often they have brought me wild, beautiful, morally progressive, unforseeable success. 95% of the time, they know better than I know, and I am a better, smarter, happier, more fullfilled person for heeding God's voice. You don't have any comparable grounds for believing yourself to be mistaken. I, sir, have REMARKABLE grounds for believing you to be mistaken.

Amergin:

I agree with just about everything you said.

Jobar:

I most certainly have, but you have all ignored them. I did claim the following:

1) That what I take to be God's voice has an amazing success rate.

2) That the counter-examples you have provided do not apply to my case because they amount to the simple occurance of fortune. While my examples included a spoken word of warning or advice, the intercession of the voice, which DETERMINED the occurance of fortune.

3) That I did not expect that God would speak to me.

4) That God has asked me to do things which are totally divorced from morality which I did not expect Him to do.

5) That on occasions, God's voice was persistent and insistent, even when I did not want to hear them.

6) That the rewards I have gleaned from obeying God's voice were ones I COULD NOT HAVE FORSEEN.

Now, you have no reason to believe me other than your general trust in my overall character. Similarly, you have no reason to disbelieve me because of your lack of specific data on my case. I openly admit that you have reason to doubt me, and if that's all you were doing I would tip my hat to you and say no more.

Yes I believe I opened by saying that. God speaks to people, in my mind, to confirm their decision to believe in Him and to commit themselves to a relationship with Him. If He did more than that, He would be going against what I take to be a guiding principle of His by interfering with our free will.

With all due respect, none of the arguments here have any strength at all. Basically, your only argument is "I've heard other people say that stuff before, and there was nothing to that and therefore there is nothing to this." So far, you've made broad generalizations about "literature" that clearly demonstrates that such beliefs are false without a single mention (IIRC) of a specific book or the specific methodology by which these books are able to assess "signifigance" or "meaning", without which these studies are useless. Your only evidence that I've seen, Jobar, is your previously confirmed tendency to disbelieve.

Present me a study where religious experiences have been scientifically proved to have no signifigance, and you will have the beginings of a case. Right now all I'm seeing is hearsay.

Then you are in a bit of a dilema, Jobar, because I have become the person that you admire almost exclusively through submitting myself to the voice of God. If I were not "deluded" as you believe me to be, I would not be a very nice person. I was not one, and I've got witnesses. Lots of them.

Do yourself a favor, and think through my claims on the grounds of two hypothesis. First, read through them with the perspective that God does not exist. Secondly, read through them with the perspective that God does exist. Is my claim consistent with what you would expect if God exists? And if so, and if you have no real conclusive proof that God doesn't exist, then why are you so convinced that I must be wrong.

As to these nasty effects, Jobar... <sigh>... if you don't see them in my discourse here with you, then where are they likely to come out. They aren't hidden, my friend. They aren't there.

Whatever you think of me, get this straight and clear:

I WOULD NOT BE THE PERSON YOU TAKE ME TO BE, MORALLY, EMOTIONALLY, AND SPIRITUALLY, WITHOUT THE VOICE OF GOD. I AM NOT A NATURALLY NICE PERSON. FAR FROM IT. GOD HAS MADE ME INTO THE PERSON I HAVE BECOME, AND IF I FOLLOWED YOUR ADVICE ABOUT NOT HEEDING HIS VOICE, I WOULD STILL BE THE PERSON I WAS.

(Apologies for the caps)

Autonemesis

And then you grew up, and stopped asking your parents for those things. Or some of us did.

I just did.

luvluv

Family Man:

You are making a special claim. You are making the special claim that I am suffering from a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Look, Family Man, do you really expect me to believe that you, a person committed enough to the atheist propostion that he regularly engages in atheist message board, and who started a thread declaring ALL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE TO BE THE RESULT OF A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY, to be totally unbiased in assesing my claim?

It's not like I came to you out of the blue and told you my experience, and you said it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Lets look at how this conversation evolved:

1) You started a thread premised on the belief that all religious experiences are the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

2) I came to you with a religious experience.

3) You said it was the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Now, either my irony-o-meter is off a few points, or you are missing something about your self that is staring you straight in the face. What you are engaging in is the height of a sfp (which I will use for short from now on).

No, you haven't. Our culture could be exactly as it is, and God could exist. There's nothing about our cultural belief, in and of itself, that would speak against the possibility of God speaking to people. You are essentially saying that in a culture where there is the general belief that God speaks to people, that people will think God speaks to them. However, it is just as consistent to say that in a culture where God actually speaks to people, that culture will develop a belief that God speaks to people. You really haven't demonstrated anything which is inconsistent with my claim.

I agree with that (though you are wrong of course ) but I believe you went so far as to say that my experiences actually were the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My claims are actually not logically flawed. I'd like to see you demonstrate that they are. However, to imply that I am undergoing a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that I am deluded, kinda sorta sounds to me like an assesment of my psychological state.

Likewise.

Well, it was meant to be somewhat harsh to prove a point. I have every bit as much of a reason to doubt the objectivity of your assesment of me as you do of my statements about my experiences. Your tone seemed condescending to me. I was tempted to say: "Hey, I'm standing right here. I can hear you." Particularly when you say stuff like this:

Hawkingfan:

Well, I could just as easily find you scriptures which clearly indicate that God will refuse prayers on grounds of selfishness (lusts of the flesh), a lack of faith, and wrong priorities. You have to interpret scripture in the light of other scripture, and in light of personal experience and church history (the last part is MHO). I could discuss this with you at length on another thread, but I am already too tired from answering the other questions on here to dig up scripture references for you now. Anyone as industrious as you could probably find them on your own, anyhow.

rdalin:

Like the expectation that religious beliefs are the result of self-fulfilled prophecies?

Autonemesis

I agree. That's why I generally ask people to keep their religious experiences to themselves.

Clutch

Let's see, luvluv. I have knowledge of the extensive literature on the cognitive and motivational determinants of relevance, salience, and confirmation judgements. But this doesn't count as evidence of the error in your personal judgements of events as divinely influenced. Because you, in your self-admitted complete ignorance of this science, have decreed that it is:

-- logically fallacious
-- anti-theistic
-- inaccurate
-- ill-defined
-- over-reaching

I have to say that I have never seen a more desperate display of argumentum ad ignorantium than you display here.

Do you recognize the wonderful irony of what this tactic reveals about your reasoning?

Family Man

Yes, I am. How many times do I have to repeat this? However, I made no special claims about what I think and experience. Your assertion that you can simply reverse my argument doesn't work because I'm not making any special claims about where my thoughts come from.

First, I did not start a thread that ALL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE TO BE THE RESULT OF A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. I started a thread that states that claims of personal experience of a God of the type expressed in the quotes I provided can not be taken seriously because of the obvious self-fulfilling prophecy the claims entail. This point has yet to be disputed. And your experiences seem to fall under the category I discussed in the opening point.

And no, I am not claiming to be unbiased. I am claiming, however, to be approaching the problem objectively. I'm not saying your arguments are wrong because of your bias, Luvluv. I'm saying that you haven't refuted the notion that the expectations set up by the Christian religion must lead one to conclusion that they are not trustworthy as evidence for God.

And the problem here is what? That I haven't put forth a rationale as to why your religious experience is a self-fulfilling prophecy? What were you expecting, that I would be so bowled over by your experience I'd just give up what appears to me to be a sound argument? What do you think you were getting into when you responded?

The only irony I see here is that you apparently didn't expect me to defend my thesis.

You're putting words into my mouth. My argument applies only to personal experience as described by Christians. It is not proof that God doesn't exist, and I haven't held it out as such.

Theoretically, this is correct. All I've said is that personal experience is poor evidence.

Also correct.

True, if evidence could be developed that could definitely show that to be true. However, I don't believe such evidence exists -- you even agreed that I am justified in mistrusting your experiences -- and that doesn't make the problem of self-prophecy go away. At this time, we cannot know which option is true. Caution tells us to hold the skeptical position.

Incorrect. You yourself said that I am justified in mistrusting your experiences. My burden is to demonstrate that the conditions exist for a self-fulfilling prophecy here, and that point hasn't been disputed. Your burden is to demonstrate that your experiences must come from God. You haven't done that. All you've done is to claim it.

If you wish to choose to believe that your experiences are not the result of a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is your right. However, I don't think you've demonstrated that to anyone else's satisfaction.

I do understand.

Sure you do. But I think I've put forth a much better argument for my position.

So how I am supposed to get the point across? Luvluv, you're on a atheist site. I think you're upset because a cherished belief of yours has been attacked, and I believe successfully. I haven't been personal in my assessments; I have been straightforward about it. If you want to learn, you're going to have to learn to take a few punches.

In short, I don't think your messages are real. If I thought it was wrong to say that to your face, I wouldn't have said it. I know perfectly well where you are and you were meant to read it. I addressed to another because I don't think you're deluded; that is far too harsh in my opinion. Had I said you were deluded, an apology would be forthcoming.

But you have to admit, Luvluv, where you have been unduly harsh I haven't responded in kind. Keep that in mind in the future. There's a difference between saying something that another person doesn't like and attacking someone personally.

Family Man

I agree. I can think of plenty of situations were I've misjudged things because of my own perceptions. Mistaken is a very good term for Luvluv's position.

Boro Nut

Quite right. I suggest we put these disbelievers to the sword once an for all. Can I ask you to pray unselfishly for me to get a new car. That way we can't fall off. If it works I will pray for one for you. Can I have alloy wheels please. Cheers mate.

Boro Nut

Ion

Good experiment Boro Nut.

The result will come to what Neurologist Amergin posted here, regarding the effectiveness of prayer under scientific settings:
I think that luvluv is mistaken into psychological self-fulfilling prophecies.

If not, then praying for something and getting it, can be achieved by luvluv as a paranormal event under scientific observation, say at Randi ( www.randi.org ).

Boro Nut

Hey LuvLuv, what the hell do you think you are playing at? I don't care if it IS new, if you think I am driving that piece of shit you are saddly mistaken. I would not be seen dead in a Lada even if it does have alloy wheels. Get it off my drive NOW!!!

Boro Nut

Oh - and you can forget about any car from me you twat.