So what?
It’s my experience that very few people who believe themselves to have personally experienced such a revelation actually care if anyone else takes them seriously. The fact that the ones who DO care are generally pushy and/or dangerous in some sense doesn’t actually change that.
My rebuttal would be to ask if God told them anything they didn’t already know - and the stuff you find in self-help books doesn’t count. Did God give them a cure for a disease? Did God give them a proof of P != NP? Did God tell them the winner of the third race at Belmont?
Remember when every other person was getting abducted by aliens? No difference, really. They were just as convinced. Arthur C. Clarke said that no one should believe that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin until you see their Mars license plate.
I’ve actually done that… After all, if they claim to have a “personal relationship” with Jesus, can’t Jesus tell them something from his position of omniscience? It seems so very easily testable!
You probably know the kinds of answers I’ve received…
“You shall not tempt the Lord thy God.”
“God isn’t going to show off, just to prove you wrong.”
“This would fall under the sin of pride.”
“It would be trivializing the infinite to ask such a thing.”
Not just Christians, I hasten to add. I know rather a few neo-Pagans in the modern Wicca movement, who claim that they have specific, concrete, testable powers. One claims she can perform out-of-body excursions, for instance. But she refuses to use this power to look into a sealed envelope or even to identify an item I have placed in the open on my bookshelf. “That would be an abuse of my goddess-granted power.”
So, ultimately, it devolves to TV-Guide level horoscope predictions. “Today is a good day to make a change in your routine.” God becomes banal. “God loves us all” but won’t prevent wars or famines. What a sad and sorry farce, for those of us who enjoy rational epistemology!
Trinopus
So it’s a terrible argument for why I should take their claims seriously.
I really doubt that. Any that actually didn’t care probably wouldn’t mention it to you. And there are enough “pushy” believers to do things like pass laws against same sex marriage or to keep trying to push creationism into school; I really don’t see it as plausible that the pushy believers are the minority. It’s the live-and-let-live types who are the tiny fringe. But people defending religion prefer to claim that the ones trying to force their beliefs on others are a minority because it makes religion less threatening than it is.
Excellent that you tried. I’m surprised you didn’t get the “proof destroys faith” argument that seems so popular nowadays.
I don’t believe a person who wants to believe in a God want’s convincing,just like a spouse who doesn’t want to know if it’s partener is cheating. Faith is just that faith. Some people need it to get through life. We can prove all written, taught,thought or read things, were of human origin and it depends on what human one chooses to believe.
Proof does destroy faith, because once something is proven it becames fact and is no longer faith!
Is there any practical difference between obviating faith and destroying it though?
It’s really hard to tell, but I’m not sure you’re right. I’m certain you already completely understand the role that confirmation bias can play in these scenarios, and this one seems an obvious case in point.
It isn’t going to be my argument that nutty, pushy fundies are a vanishingly tiny fringe (or indeed that their nutty, pushy actions would somehow be excused by that), but I don’t think they’re even a majority. You’re mostly describing that majority(but not exclusive) position of Evangelical Christianity, which is about a quarter of mainstream Christianity as a whole.
I don’t have any particular point to make here. A quarter share of assholes in any group is still too many assholes.
[quote=“Troppus, post:66, topic:599688”]
We look not to social behavior, but to science for answers as to the existence of gods.
[QUOTE]
See, this is what burns me. Science claims to be the study of the natural world, but some unbelievers wish to claim that their study of the natural world somehow has a bearing on the supernatural. Science has to remain silent, by definition, on the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, or else it is no longer science.
if you disagree, I challenge you to describe what scientific process you have devised to prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of the supernatural in general, or of God specifically.
Please explain how that can be done.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that radical secularists in the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China killed around a hundred million people in the twentieth century. The Marxists who killed all those people explicitly rejected any belief in God or the supernatural, claimed their philosophy was thoroughly scientific, that they were acting in accord with reason and the highest moral principles, and that there was no question about their moral claim to power. The result was millions of dead and two brutally repressive and impoverished societies.
You have responded to this by saying that Communism is really a religion. That response is an incredibly lame, even childish, evasion. I can’t help wondering how high that pile of corpses would have to get before you would concede that secularists have indeed committed mind-boggling crimes against humanity.
In the name of the State, not in the name of Secularism. Where as the body count by the religious types are almost all in the name of whatever religion they’re wrapped up in.
These days the crazies are befouling public parks with their encampments and ranting incoherently about their massively ignorant views on economics and politics. Some of them stand up in nightclubs or go on television to advocate gangraping or killing a prominent Republican and beheading the rich.
If they have their way, sooner or later they’ll be adding some more corpses to that hundred million pile.
See, Der Trihs, when Zoe says you do not listen and you clam you do, I have to shake my head.
The comment concerned THE POSITIONS ON THIS BOARD and then you claimed you’re not the extreme and asked us to consider people setting off bombs.
Perhaps you’d care to point out who the bomber is on this board?
You DO often represent the most extreme views on this board, but you seem to have some kind of denial about it.
:rolleyes: They justified their actions with a secularist philosophy. The states they served justified their moral claim to power with distinctly secularist principles. You can’t separate their secularist ideology from the states they established.
Here we go again; the believers have no good arguments so they try to smear all unbelievers as mass murdering tyrants. Especially egregious in this case because the Communists were hardly secular humanists.
Communism is a faith based worldview and belief system; that’s a religion or something so close it might as well be one. It persecuted (other) religions for the same reason Christianity or Islam does; to eliminate competition. They are really fairly similar.
Atheism isn’t a belief system; and while secular humanism is a belief system it isn’t faith based. And neither of those is Communism.
Of course I can. One has nothing to do with each other. The Soviet Union wasn’t formed so all the secularist could gather in one place. Secularism was dictated in order to keep people in line. You’re putting the horse before the cart.
What in the world are you babbling about?
By no means do I mean to claim all atheists lack any morals. But I have a specifc example of some atheists who have a moral problem, even while claiming they don’t.
No Christian claims pixies exist, or zombies. But some atheists often build this strawman to belittle believers while patting themselves on the back that they’ve crafted their own set of morals. They are glad to point out a lack of murder, rape and theft as proof of their moral code, but these are all no-brainers.
In my moral code, I have a tenet “You shall not bear false witness.” I find these kinds of strawmen to be false witness. In short, a person knowing that Christians do not believe in reanimated corpses that continue to rot (and usually are portrayed as having a hunger for BRAAAAAIIIIINS) yet this is how Jesus is often portrayed by these atheists who have no problem claiming they are moral.
Where is your love of truth? Isn’t that in the secular moral code?
Now, I’m not taking anyone to task who wants to draw legitimate metaphors and admit they are metaphors. But when the beliefs of Christians are twisted into absurdities, I do have an issue, because at that point you are claiming that I worship a rotting corpse that wants to eat brains.
This certainly is not true and I have high doubts as to the morals of anyone who claims that I do.
Further, i’d cut more slack to people who claim this if they want to describe the people who have been clinically dead but came back to life as “zombies,” which really wouldn’t be very kind to said living humans. If that’s your understanding of zombism, fine, call Jesus a zombie, but don’t be surprised when a real life once dead person thinks your more than rude when you also describe him that way.
Why does your brand of silliness deserve any more respect or care than any other fiction?