I have. Nope. I used to when I was religious.
And come to think of it on that earlier post about my ‘beliefs’ about religion, I think I’d actually feel more comfortable referring to them as my thoughts on religion.
Just curious if your friend Mr. Popper ever used the words “scientific proof” together? How many atheists here have ever requested “scientific proof” of God or even of supernatural events. I’ve only seen people looking for some sort of objective evidence.
If some convincing liar claimed to have an experience with the IPU, how are we to judge it any differently from your experience with Jesus? Mack’s abductees had convincing experiences with aliens (experiences we have good reason to think they thought they had.) We can only judge these by looking for external supporting evidence. Subjective evidence is convincing support (for me) for the experience, not for the actual existence of the thing supposedly experienced.
You, Voyager, have the patience of Job.
Now, Voyager. I’ve lost sight of the reason that you want to judge these experiences anyway. Did Liberal offer them as a reason for why you should believe or simply a reason why he believes?
You can probably recall clearly your thoughts and experiences of the last 24 hours. I’ve decided I want to judge these thoughts and experiences. Describe everything that has happened to you in the 24 hours. I’m particularly interested in the strong emotions that you’ve had – ones having to do with memories of the love of your life, your children and grandchildren, your buddies, your childhood. I want supporting evidence that you have had these strong emotions and experiences. It must be subjective evidence.
No, wait. There are some things you just can’t describe and it wouldn’t matter to me anyway. Relating your experiences aren’t going to make me homesick for your friends. Forget it. I choose not to judge.
Gee, that was easy. Why can’t everyone be like we are?
"…Sail thou forth to seek and find.’ – Whitman 
Science is for examining nature. It would be idiotic to expect or demand scientific evidence of God.
You must be joking. People on the Dope ask for scientific evidence of God, either by direct demand or by indirect reference, all the time. See the post just above this one for the latest example out of a great many.
Okay, so now you’ve called me an idiot. Coming after implying I’m a racist, that’s mighty christian of you. Thanks.
Hey christian! Don’t use my post as an example for misdirection and bullshit.
If you’ll read the quote that you selectively extracted, you’ll see that I was responding to a question from **czarcasm **about how I used to feel when I was a theist and how I’d have felt at that time if someone had stated what **czarcasm **was referring to in my direction at that time. You know, sort of like what the OP is about. We’re trying to understand what causes offense.
I didn’t ask for scientific evidence directly or indirectly. I didn’t ask for scientific evidence at all, in fact. I was answering a question about how I used to feel when I was a theist to explore the OP.
Therefore, Voyager’s point about dopers not demanding scientific evidence for religious beliefs is not negated by using my post as an example.
Then why did you assume you’d been called an idiot?
I didn’t
But you did.
There was no assumption there. You referred to my former belief as that of an idiot. That’s just a fact of what you stated. Do you see how the word ‘idiotic’ is first used by you?
The demand for scientific evidence of God, whether it’s from a believer or an atheist, is equally idiotic. If a person used to be an idiot but has improved, then he should be proud, not defensive.
You’re saying that I used to be an idiot. Thanks for the direct personal attack.
Actually, have someone read my post to you, and have them explain the difference between calling a demand idiotic and calling a person an idiot. Such highly nuanced reasoning is a prerequisite for posting in Great Debates. I just want to help out since you are, um, new and all.
Maybe you can read your own post instead and save us all some time.
*"If a **person **used to be an **idiot *but has improved, then he should be proud, not defensive."
That’s calling a **person **idiotic, albeit in the past; it’s not calling a demand idiotic. That’s given away by use of the word…um “person.” Hopefully, your highly nuanced skill-set can distinguish that.
Make the puns stop! LOL 
Well, which perceived slight are you protesting? The one you’ve already rejected, that you’ve been called an idiot? Or the one you’re perceiving now, that a reference to a third person in the past is a reference to you in the present? If I am to apologize, I demand to know what it’s for.
I didn’t reject it. I rejected that I’d made an assumption, not that I’d been insulted. The post you quoted was in any case one in which I stated that **if **a person is of the mind that a lack of scientific evidence negates their god, then they’d be humiliated and that if I held that view at that time, I’d have felt humiliated.
Which was stated to help address the OP and figure out what’s offensive.
It’s a far cry from there to you stating that I used to be an idiot.
Well, then. See that you keep your wits about you in the future.